The CO2 causing warming myth is nothing but media and political hype...
Looking at the data, it's clear to see that CO2 increase follows, not leads, an increase in temperature. If there is causation (thus far only some correlation has been established), then the rise in CO2 is caused by the increase in temperature, not the other way around. 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."
For those that support the CO2 driving the increase, I've yet to see how the climate models explain how the temperature 450 million years ago was colder than it has ever been in the last half billion years, but the CO2 levels were 10 times what we have today. And for those arguing that human activity is driving the increase, why does the rate of increase vary so greatly (particularly looking at the significant decrease in rate during 1991-1993) despite the consistent growth of human CO2 producing activities. The rate should be consistently increasing if human activity were the main driver, but it hasn't been.
I'm not arguing that humanity has no impact on the climate. And, I'm not even really arguing that we are not a significant impact. However, it seems that deforestation along with ever expanding cities with concrete and asphalt that absorb and radiate heat make an even better explanation than CO2, which the data suggest follows temperature rather than temperature following the CO2 increase.
How could you set up a commercially operated prison such that the operator would not benefit from an increased number of incarcerations?
You can't. And, you can't create a system where people won't break rules unless you don't have any rules.
I see many posts on this topic saying (not referring to yours) that we need to eliminate commercial prisons and set things up where this can never happen again. Well, acccording to the current system, this was illegal. You can pass all the laws you like, but corrupt people will always do corrupt things.
We don't need to eliminate commercial prisons if they make economic sense as a way to manage the justice system. What we need to do in this case is to make sure the law says that any judge that does this sort of thing is disbarred and thrown in prison for life. Anyone involved in paying bribes on the prison side should also receive a stiff sentence. AND, their company should lose ALL present and future contracts NATIONWIDE. The victims should also receive IMMENSE damage payments.
Make the costs so high for being corrupt that the companies themselves will make sure it isn't happening. Otherwise, they lose their ENTIRE business. They'll choose smaller, legal profits over none ever again virtually every time. There may still be the occasional idiot, but they'll be out of that business soon enough.
mandated this years ago, we could be using a DB25 connector on our cell phones today!
This should be modded insightful rather than funny. Once you REQUIRE a standard, there's nothing to improve because you can't sell anything better. Sure, it's a bitch to have to buy a new charger when you change phones. But, it'll be a bigger problem people will be whining about when new X power/data interface is created, but you can't get it on your phone because they are legally required to stick with micro usb or whatever the "standard" is.
Is this a problem? Sure. Is the answer to lock down choice? If you never want to change your mind, sure. But, what if you do? Change the standard? And, who decides?
Mea culpa. We collectively pay for the drugs, but you don't need to worry about turning up to the doctor and not being able to afford the drugs you need.
Only for those that can't afford it. Those that can come out of pocket.
Medications are the number one place we need to cut the bureaucracy. I'd start with getting doctors out of the prescription business. Let's eliminate the whole idea of prescriptions. Some will argue that people would abuse medications then, though. We could put controls around medications that are prone to abuse outside of the current process. We already do that with OTC medications that can be used to synthesize methamphetamine. But, the abuse issue is a completely different discussion.
The reason I argue for removing prescriptions is because every time I go to the doctor, I see a drug salesman there pushing the latest pharmeceuticals (none of which have generic alternatives). And, the doctor always prescribes those being pushed even if there are alternatives that do have generic options. It's the centralized bureaucracy of prescriptions that drives up drug costs. The doctors get kick backs for prescribing the brand name drugs. People have to have prescriptions to get their medications. So, guess what medications people have to buy. Of course, they don't "buy" it, their insurance pays for it. More bureaucracy, more costs.
Wal-mart and most major pharmacies offer the majority of generic drugs for $5 or less for a monthly prescription. Almost anyone can afford that. But, the drug companies know that they control the process because they market to the doctors. So, they keep tweaking their products just as their patents run out so that they keep generic options off the table. They put billions into developing drugs that do little if anything to treat conditions better than older products that have generic options. Take the doctors and insurance out of the process and they don't waste their R&D money just to protect cash streams because people are going to go with the generics if the difference in results is not significantly better.
Sure, they'll still be new drugs that don't have generics yet. But, most of those will be drugs that are specifically for catastrophic conditions like cancer or AIDS, in which case REAL insurance that insures for unexpected problems would then kick in and cover it. Maintenance medications like those for blood pressure, cholesterol, acid reflux, etc do have adequate generics that people can afford out of pocket.
The pharmaceutical companies will then have to actually develop things that improve people's health rather than solve the same problems over and again just to keep their cash cow pumping. They'll have to price their products competitively because cost will be a factor in people's purchasing decisions. They'll also be able to do that more easily because they won't be pumping all the development money into products that don't improve the state of health care. They'll actually be accountable because no one is going to pay for things that don't offer enough benefit to justify the price.
The entire system can get much better. But, I believe it has to be one that eliminates as much ancillary activity that is not necessary to providing care for it to be both effective and sustainable. That means we kill the bureaucracies. Then people can both get the care and afford it.
It's fine to offer social support for those that can't manage to get it on their own. But, we can't let all the bureaucrats convince us that we need to keep the same mess, just change the way it's paid for. That seems to be all I've heard from advocates of socialized medicine. That doesn't solve the problem. It just changes it slightly.
If we turned it into a government mess, we would stand a better chance of controlling the costs and cutting down the bureaucracy than we do now. I agree that the insane overhead is the real problem. But the free market has proven itself incapable of removing insane overhead. Every niche, no matter how useless to society as a whole, is exploited and defended. Sure, government protects its entrenched interests too. But this won't be an entrenched interest. So in the process of publicizing health care, we can destroy the current bureaucracy, and with a tiny bit of clever legislation, as well as ongoing citizen oversight, we can keep it from becoming an entrenched government bureaucracy.
Can you name a single government program that has controlled costs and cut down on bureaucracy? It doesn't happen. And health care is certainly not an area where it will happen... at least the way the people want it. The cost reductions come only from rationing, not bureaucratic cuts. To control the costs, you'll have to wade through a bureaucratic mess just to get basic care.
Sure, they could mandate the price of things, but that just means fewer people will go into medicine. We're already experiencing shortages of nurses and some types of doctors because talented people would rather do something else that doesn't require the level of b.s. that has to be dealt with in medicine. So, then you get even more rationing and lower quality of care.
You can't exactly blame the free market for the health care mess... at least the medical side of it. Sure, "insurance" has done more than it's part to screw things up, but that was because it changed the market from a free one to a regulated one. It's just regulated by insurance rather than government. Of course, it's also not free because the government already pays nearly half of all health care costs in the US. We already have a government system. And, it hasn't improved things.
The only way to make things affordable is to destroy the bureaucracy. Government only creates bureaucracy. It never even reduces it.
I can be open to a government provided OPTION for catastrophic care insurance for those that can't afford it. I can even be open to government subsidized primary care for those needing assistance. But, if we continue to allow primary care to be managed by bureaucracy, whether private or government, rather than by patients and doctors themselves, then the costs will grow, the bureaucracy will grow and the mess will only get bigger.
Citizens don't control corporations, but we do control our government.
Really? So, I can blame you for the Iraq war? I can blame you for Guantanamo (which still isn't closed by the way)?
Citizens don't control our government. The mob (and I'm not talking about the Italian guys with the nice suits) does. The corporate lobbyists and mass media control our government. They (the government, lobbyists and media) allow us to think we control it, but don't fool yourself.
And as for corporations, we might not control them, which could be debatable, but they can't use deadly force on us legally. The government can. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but I'd gladly pick the one that can't take my property, freedom or life legally.
We don't have to be afraid of 'losing our government,' because no one but US can take it away from US. I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Could you try to explain it in a little more depth?
We use that term a little differently than other parts of the world. That's how I'm using it here. In parlimentary systems, a party is elected and then it forms the government. We elect people who are members of a party. At least, that's what we claim we do. Most people go in and check the names that have their chosen party associated with them.
So, when I say the purpose is to make people afraid of losing their government, I mean losing the government of the party in control. You've got fearmongering and propaganda on both sides in the US that feeds this. Health care is just another ball in the game they play. Giving more of it to the government (the US government already pays for ~45% of health care costs in the US) just gives the parties another tool to manipulate us with.
And could you give an example of a system that would, in your opinion, give people a guarantee of access to health care?
People have guaranteed access now. But, that's not what you're asking. You're asking for a system that guarantees complete care for anyone without concern for costs.
First, I'm not aware of any system that can guarantee anything. The only guarantee I'm aware of with life is death.
But, I digress...
The problem with the current system is that the costs are outrageous. That's why people can't afford basic care. That's why everyone needs some sort of insurance. And, that is where you find the root of the problem.
Insurance, in health care, is not insurance at all. It's a health payment plan. Real insurance is supposed to insure you against an unexpected loss. Annual check-ups, birth control pills and Viagra are not unexpected. You should pay for those out of your pocket.
Ahh, but they're too expensive you say. Why? The reason is that the insurance companies long ago made it their mission to change their product (which hardly anyone bought by the way) so that it was involved with every aspect of the system. And, so, they pushed it with companies to use as a cheap way to offer compensation for employees. As more and more people joined the program, they began expanding "coverage" until they covered everything.
The problem is, with anything that you separate the driver of the cost from the cost itself, the laws of supply and demand begin to break down. Since care is free, people start going to the doctor for splinters and stubbed toes. So, the insurance companies decided to control the costs. They hired their own doctors. The hired people to process and review claims. They started to require things to be authorized to make sure people were only doing things that they really "needed" to have done. Essentially, they implemented rationing. They also raised their premiums on the other side of the equation.
On the provider side, the doctors had to hire people who were specialists in insurance. They had to hire people to process claims. They had to make sure they complied and followed each companies processes and procedur
You are forgetting the control aspect. If we socialize medicine, people won't be nearly as afraid of losing their jobs, and might not put up with as much crap.
No, they wouldn't. They'd just be afraid of losing their government then. So, whoever manages to get it in is guaranteed reelection, which is the whole point.
The nice thing would be to have a system where people didn't have to worry about losing anything costing them their health. I don't see socialization solving that problem.
Well, in the UK we have evil socialised medicine, so we don't have to pay the full cost of our medically necessary drugs.
You don't pay the full PRICE. You pay the full cost. It just comes in other forms. Despite what people might wish, the government doesn't waive it's magic wand and make costs disappear. It can shift them around and make the price look better. The costs will always be there in one form or another.
It's kind of like energy. Costs cannot be created or destroyed. They can be converted into other forms, however.
How about we also give 1.5 votes to the disabled? African Americans? LGBT people? Left-handed people? People with type AB-negative blood? Gingers?
How about we dole out votes by how much you actually contribute to society? Sure, that's a vague phrase there that requires elaboration, but the idea that people who choose to be ignorant, uniformed and much more knowledgeable about the American Idol contestants that the candidates and issues should have an equal say to those that make the effort to understand it all and make a positive difference in many people's lives is horrific.
Democracy is a beautiful until you take a good look at it up close. We're nowhere near it in the US yet, but the closer we get, the more screwed up things getting.
It makes more sense than X receiving 51% and Y receiving 49% and Y getting 100% of the votes because X did better nationally. All this system does is officially guarantee a third party will never get electoral votes.
That's what happens when you have two parties deciding how THEY will get elected...
I believe the 17th amendment passed because, as great as that balance and distribution sounds in theory, the practical reality was different.
In practice, the appointment rather than election of Senators provided a wide-open avenue for corrupt appointees, seat buying (see Blagojevich), and a nepotistic entrenchment of political power.
So, are you saying there's no corruption with the current process where senators are working for lobbyists? And, Blago didn't get away with what he was pulling. Times have changed from the early 20th century when the amendment was passed. It's much harder to get away with that sort of thing.
Also, the legislature does the appointing, not a single individual. It's much harder to hide a corrupt conspiracy than a corrupt individual.
You make an excellent point about both economics and climate science. They are both based on historical data that is used to develop statistical models that fit the data. And, as any statistician would tell you, just because you have a model that fits the data you have doesn't mean you can use it to tell what the future will be.
You point out that the 3 day forecast is hardly wrong. You're right there. But, what about the 30 day forecast? I've been chided many times by people supporting climate change hysteria that weather is not climate. I do find the ridiculousness of that argument amusing, but that's neither here nor there. I would simply argue that the economic models can equal that precision. It's easy for the economic models to predict the state of the economy 3 days out with at least equal or better precision than the weather. Of course, the difference is that our general concern of the weather (outside those losing sleep of the changing climate) is pretty short in time scope. Our concern for economic conditions is usually on the scale of years.
The problem with both (or all three for those that say weather and climate are seperate) is that there is a huge amount of inherent entropy in the system. That's just basic physics. For economics, some would argue that the underlying physics has no influence on the entropy, regardless there is psychology involved which does plenty to throw in chaos. The only way to eliminate the effects of chaos on models is to both holistically understand ALL factors that influence the outputs of a model and also be able to quantify those factors. We certainly don't have that with economics because we don't have the level of understanding of psychology, sociology, etc that influence economics. And, if we had that with weather, we'd know what the weather will be everyday for the next 1000 years.
So, all of our models are flawed and require refinement. Does that mean they offer zero utility to us or do we take what we have understanding they're flawed and work from there?
Give me proof that the basis of economics has been fully exorcised of is misbegotten roots and I still don't believe that individuals will always act to maximize their "utility."
You just need to do some in depth study of economics to understand that it is grown much beyond the initial assumptions. Economic modeling has been as accurate as climate modeling. Economists have predicted the occurrence and impact of the last several economic downturns. There's still much dispute in economics like climate science. The difference is that we get to hear about the disputes in economics. We don't with climatology.
As for the individual maximizing his utility, economics is an aggregate science. The assumption is that on the aggregate (in general) individuals will seek to maximize their own utility. The other assumption that goes along with that is that people would have complete and correct information with which to rationalize those decisions.
The proof that economics has moved beyond its early roots of those two base assumptions is clear when you realize the level to which Game Theory is applied in modern economics. Game Theory expands the model substantially taking it beyond Adam Smith. Those assumptions are still true. However, with perfect information, for an individual to maximize their own utility they must do it in concert with the aggregate. Economics is not based around the atomic individual as in its origins now, but upon the individual in context of a rhizomic, interdependent "game".
The breakdown we still have in this world is the lack of information. Education is what is required to stabilize economies. That allows people to filter out bad information and to collect correct information. Our problem is that we have a populace that is not particularly interested in understanding and would prefer to watch American Idol than develop a deeper understanding of the world. So, irrationality is built into the system. Irrationality is what causes problems with economic modeling because it isn't completely understood, much in the same way that inadequately understood factors, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, solar cycles and cloud activity, cause problems with climate models.
I think you really should dig more into economics before you dismiss it. I felt the same way about climate science before because all of my knowledge and experience of it was through the media, which I know with respect to technical things that I understand produces severely flawed and sensationalized interpretations of them. Anyone here on slashdot can tell you the same. After I started digging into the science, not the media pseudoscience works, it became clear to me that climate science is valid. The scientists are not making these sensational claims. It's the media and political types that are. If you would dig yourself into economics, I would bet that you would have the same realization.
Wow. You are just hell bent on relying on journalists that have no understanding of anything but the arrangement of words for you information.
That entire diatribe is based on the 19th century view of economics theory. He in no way mentions the developments of Keynes, Friedman, the Austrian school, etc. He insists on debunking economics based on what the theories were when the science first emerged. If that's a fair way to assess a branch of science, I can easily say that climate science is not science because those idiots claimed that we were entering an ice age back in the 1970's, when the Earth has been clearly warming.
He cites no sources, illustrates a complete misunderstanding of modern economics and is using total misinformation to promote his view of things. The article is nothing about a rant on a subject that the author obviously has no understanding of. He challenges it on the ideas that it adopted from physics at the time, which he himself admits was incomplete. He could easily argue that physics is not science either using the reasoning he laid out. However, he does at least admit physics evolved through study and experimentation. What he fails to acknowledge is that Economics has done the same.
Economics IS a science. It's much younger than the sciences of Physics and Chemistry, so it makes sense that it wouldn't be as completely developed yet. It's also a social science, which in and of itself makes it a more difficult endeavor to undertake.
Anyone that doesn't believe that Economics is a science must also take the position that psychology, sociology, anthropology and all the other social sciences are not science either.
Your evidence suggests there's definitely a statistical over representation of minorities in the judicial system. However, you don't refute the GP's argument with you evidence. You need to have the statistical data with respect to economic conditions as well. What is the economic breakdown of the prison population by race as well as the general population? I suspect that data would move the evidence a bit more in the GP's direction.
The real issue is the economic breakdown by race. Minorities are statistically over represented in the lower levels. We can argue about the why's and how's regarding that. However, I suspect that the prison population correlates somewhat with economic situation even better than race. The racial correlation is based around the economics.
Ok, so its bad if we selectively kill people but we should encourage conditions that speed up evolution despite the fact that it may kill us all. I seriously do not understand how that's better. Why not maximize our chances of living for a long time in current conditions? If you really want people to evolve faster just release some top level predators into the neighborhood.
The CO2 myth is killing people now when hospitals in Africa don't have enough electricity to run both their medical refrigerators and lights at the same time because we're trying to keep them from using any energy source that releases CO2 despite the fact that they have abundant resources to do so.
You're still basing your argument on 2 flawed assumptions:
We can maintain a static climate. There has never been a static climate. We can't create it either. If we could, we'd probably already be terraforming Mars.
Human activity is solely or mostly what is driving the change. Everyone keeps blaming CO2, but the science and data clearly show that is not the case.
If you have a plan that will clearly stop all change in the climate, then you should submit it to the Nobel committee. They would certainly have a big check waiting for you.
Well, that paper is really only discussing the potential impact on water. It still doesn't offer anything to support the CO2 myth. But, I would consider that paper as science with some politicised embellishment. If you check the list of contributors, you'll find that not all of them are scientists. Quite a few are political people with a political agenda.
Still, looking at the scientific points doesn't seem to indicate anything particularly alarming or unexpected for someone understanding the natural chaos inherent in all natural systems. The paper makes a great point that I continue to argue:
Current water management practices may not be robust enough to cope with the impacts of climate change on water supply reliability, flood risk, health, agriculture, energy and aquatic ecosystems. In many locations, water management
cannot satisfactorily cope even with current climate variability, so that large flood and drought damages occur. As a first step, improved incorporation of information about current climate variability into water-related management would assist adaptation to longer-term climate change impacts. Climatic and non-climatic factors, such as growth of population and damage
potential, would exacerbate problems in the future (very high confidence). [3.3]
Our real problem isn't the change. It's that we haven't learned to be adaptable. Lightening our requirements from our environment through efficiency is what we have to do in order to be able to adapt. We need to be able to recycle our water. We need to require less energy.
We're not really arguing much on the path that we should take here. We're arguing on the motivation. And, we're not even arguing so much on that. You say if we don't change to be more efficient we won't be able to survive. I totally agree. The only difference of opinion is about what we're trying to accomplish in terms of priority. You're arguing that we need to cut CO2 so that we don't change the climate. The energy efficiency is a secondary benefit. I'm stating that the CO2 argument is completely off base and inconsistent with the evidence. I think we should become efficient because it allows us to adapt to the inevitable change that is coming, both here on Earth and for our eventual move into space. I don't care if CO2 is reduced. If we move in the directions that I would like to see us move, it would be. I just don't believe that the change in CO2 output by humanity would stop the climate change. And, ac
Ok... I'm not going to bother to refute your points this time just a simple dichotomy.
Just a difference in philosophical approach to the subject. It doesn't reflect any of the real human value of either of us. We're still people.
You say "we don't know what will happen" but "total purity of our science is more important than the unknown effects of climate change" therefore "we shouldn't act because we can't know for sure what will happen"
I say we don't "we don't know what will happen" but "global climate change is a risk because of its unknown effects" therefore "we should act to keep the status quo."
I don't say we shouldn't act. I just dispute that we CAN maintain the status quo. I think we should change. We should learn to be more adaptable because we know that change is inevitable regardless. If we keep wasting our efforts to stop the change rather than adapt to it, we are in an entirely futile fight that probably ends in extinction. Of course, given the history of life on this planet, extinction of all species, at least those of any significant complexity, is likely inevitable.
How is your position defendable? Why do we need to know if it will be good bad or genocidal before we make a decision to stop a set of behaviors that are causing changes that NOAA thinks could last for a thousand years even if we acted forcefully now? Who cares if it a causal or leading indicator? Discuss it later, over a not **possibly** totally broken world. You present the most conservative view of skepticism but the most LSD liberal view of the possible effects. Read Collapse by Jared Diamond about what happens when you cut down the last tree. We live on a very small island in the middle of ocean light years wide. What happens if you're wrong? What happens if like the Easter Islanders an American insult of the next century is "I have a piece of your mother stuck in my teeth."
My position is easily defensible. If you don't know what causes something and you don't know what the effects of it are, how can you argue to take an action based on hypothetical scenarios. The entire argument for action is based on the assumption that CO2 increase causes temperature increase. The data and scientific consensus clearly indicate that CO2 increase follows temperature increase. So, why would the NOAA say that we could cut CO2 to zero and the change might still last 1000 years? Because the scientists know that CO2 doesn't drive the change.
If you study the history of the environmental movement and climate science, you will see that the big hysteria before the 1980's was that we were entering an ice age because global temperatures had been falling since the 1940's. There was a program produced by the BBC in the 70's discussing all the doomsday scenarios due to the inevitable ice age. The producer of that program was greatly criticized because he included in his presentation a scientist that argued that we might actually be saved from an ice age by increased CO2 emissions affecting the inevitable cooling. The scientific "consensus" of the time was that an ice age was the inevitable doomsday scenario. The data hasn't changed. The only difference is that from about 1975 on, warming began. So, the doomsday scenario could no longer be an ice age.
Say we took action based on the ice age scenario to counteract the cooling that was being presented as our coming catastrophe before. How would the result, assuming we actually could control these things, be any different than what we've seen? So, had you been around worrying about these things before, you would be satisfied we avoided the catastrophe. The only issue for those that were arguing for action to prevent the ice age is that we didn't change anything to avoid it. And, what if we act now (I'm not sure what that action would be since CO2 has no significant causal effect on temperature) to stop the warming? Assuming we could affect it, what's to say
Then we're fucked. Change has always been happening and will always happen. If we can't change with it, then we die. It's called evolution. But, from the ignorance of your arguments you may be more of a subscriber of "Intelligent Design". In that case, Jesus will be back to get you soon.:)
One theory is that our temperature has remained artifically stable for the last 10K years because of the gulf stream being shut off as we increased temp. One theory in anthropology is that the only reason we developed a society at all was because of this stability.
Just because that MIGHT be how we got here doesn't mean that we haven't sufficiently developed to survive something different. Technology has changed. Do you think that just because the temperature rises we're going back to caves? Do you think we lose all those gains just because of the change? I find that assertion weak.
Why fuck with a known quantity. risk=damagexlikelyhood again. Damage is totally unknown so why risk it?
If the damage is unknown, how can you even assess the risk? If we're supposed to always assume the worst possible outcome to drive our decisions, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, how do we decide which doomsday scenario to avoid? And, the only "known quantity" that we have is that there is, has been and always will be change. Nothing we can do can stop change from happening. We MIGHT be able to influence things to a degree, but the climate has never, nor will it, stop changing.
Even if you kill all the dumb people 50% of the remaining people will still be dumb, statistics are a bitch. I am obviously being absurdest but my point is still valid. If the conservatives think we can preemptively strike Iraq (killing hundreds of thousands of people) to prevent them from attacking us (when there was no way in hell that they would) why can't I kill the people who are risking the only known habitable planet in the universe so they can what??? Not modify their lazy, arrogant, slothful, greedy, murderous lifestyle?
I don't condone anything that the US has done with respect to Iraq and have great difficulty with much of the approach in Afghanistan. Arguing for the extermination of any opposition that is not an immediate threat to life, whether it be an international or in this case political opponent, is wasteful, ignorant and completely unproductive. And, most importantly, it is a good sign of a weak argument.
What exactly is so important that you are fighting for? Inefficiency. A noble purpose if ever there was one.
What I am fighting for is the honesty and respectability of science. Science is supposed to be based on the scientific method. It is based on collegial, friendly rivalries that are disputed with open and honest debate using all evidence. The open debate is being suppressed because the entire discussion has been hijacked by those with no scientific interest and a driven political agenda. Just research the history of the politization of the issue, which started when Margaret Thatcher used CO2 as an argument to push for nuclear power to break the coal workers union.
As for inefficiency, I have not argued in any way for that. You are making assumptions about my stance on other issues. My only argument is that CO2 does not lead to an increase in temperature. And that is based completely on the evidence and statements of most scientists in the field including many that have been part of the IPCC. I do support efficiency. Efficiency makes perfect sense whether you agree with the CO2 bunk or not. Less energy to accomplish X is better. Costs go down. Benefits to society go up. I'm all for abandoning coal fired power plants. Most of western Europe runs on nuclear. That makes complete sense. I don't need an imaginary CO2 boogeyman to convince me that there are better ways
For example, take the point that the GP made about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere half a billion years ago is news to me. If it's true, it's a fact that is being ignored by much of the current establishment. If it's false, it's yet another red herring. However, it's sounds like something that's easily refuted by anyone who knows where to look for the data. Therefore, I eagerly await any such refutations. If they don't show up, then I'll have to add that to the list of objections that sound like they may actually have some real meat to them.
And the shame is that you haven't heard of that fact. It's because the whole debate has been hijacked by those with a political and economic agenda. The data can be found around the net by searching. Tim Patterson made the observation in a testimony in 2005. Most of the scientists (not the politicians) involved with the IPCC admit that CO2 level increases FOLLOW temperature increases, not lead. And, it's quite interesting in Gore's propaganda film that he shows the graphs of the two on separate axes. The reason why, and he knows it, is that if they were on the same axis, it would be clear to everyone that CO2 increase does not cause temperature increase. If there is any causation there, it's the complete opposite.
The reason for the hysteria is people with a political agenda are pushing the seriously flawed argument that CO2 is driving the temperature increase. They're calling for quick action, despite the fact that we don't have a single shred of evidence that anyone on the planet has experienced anything negative due to warming. The reason they're pushing for quick action is so that their political agenda can be implemented before any possible cooling can happen. That way, if things do cool after their actions, they can take credit and claim that they were right while furthering their POLITICAL agenda. If temperatures don't decrease, they can claim they were still right and force more extreme measures.
I don't argue one way or another about anthropogenic warming. I'm not a climatologist. However, I do have an extensive education and background in developing and using statistical models. The entire "science" behind all of this is based on statistical models. Models require you to make assumptions about how things work. Sure, they're based on historical data, but if you don't properly account for each specific driver in your model, sooner or later it will give you bogus results. If your assumptions in your model or wrong, you can't rely on the output. And, from what I gather, many of these models are relying on CO2 as the driver for temperature increase. So, my simple question, to those that have a clue about the subject, not those that have sold their souls to the hype, is "how does the model account for the 1000% more CO2 levels that existed during the coldest period in the last half billion years compared to today?" For that to be possible, there either is some other factor that is much more significant than CO2 that acts on temperature or CO2 has virtually zero effect on temperature.
Now, please. Someone that has intimate knowledge of the real science and models explain this to me. I completely subscribe to the scientific method. Good evidence of a testable and verifiable hypothesis is all it takes to convince me. But, as far as I can tell, CO2 driven global warming is just below room temperature nuclear fusion at this point.
Yes. But, that is a high level view of it. There are multiple levels of estimates of damage as well as probabilities associated with those. Also, you're discounting the argument that global warming could actually benefit humanity by expanding the amount of arable land along with other ideas proposed by scientists that don't think warming is a problem but a good thing.
Lets say that the "worst case possible scenario" for catastrophic global climate change is death of all humans, in that case we can assume that the damage is infinite. If the damage is infinite then even if the likelihood is very very small anything times infinity equals infinity. Resulting in the basic truth that global climate change has basically infinite risk to all humanity. If that is true we have every moral and ethical right to kill people who do not believe in the RISK of climate change. If all it takes is a couple of assholes to kill us all why can't we kill them first? What's the worst case risk there? Lets say 50% of people are dumb and don't believe that they can irreparably harm the planet. We round them up and kill them or sterilize them or cut out their reproductive organs or give them an Ebola milkshake (whatever works.) Worst case; damage, 50% x likelihood, 100% = risk is 50% to the human population. Not so bad. There are 7 billion of us currently, what's 3.5 billion dead if it means we have a chance of surviving until we get hit by a big fucking rock.
Wow. That's the best illustration of the absurdity of the global warming hysteria I've ever seen. At the risk of terminating objective discussion with the N bomb, it seems that a very similar reasoning was used by the Nazi's to justify their concentration camps. Inferior people, for them jews, for you "dumb and don't believe that they can irreparably harm the planet", needed to be exterminated so the superior people, for them the Aryan race, for you the people that "know" anthropogenic warming, particularly based on CO2, is absolute fact.
That's the clearest example to indicate that science is not driving this. Political forces advocate murder. Scientists oppose killing, particularly simply because of a difference of opinion.
Its a variation (taken to a horrific extreme) of Isaac Asimov's freedom of the bathroom quote. "When two people share two bathrooms, each has "freedom of the bathroom." This freedom entails using the resource whenever, for however long, and for whatever purpose one chooses. Unfortunately, when 20 people share those same two bathrooms, freedom of the bathroom disappears. It is a simple metaphor from which he extrapolates the problems of overpopulation-a circumstance he believed would mean the end to democracy, human dignity, convenience and decency.
Nothing we care about can survive exponential population growth. Eventually population growth will stop and when it does (unless it is our choice and even then only if we chose contraception and/or education) its going to mean lots of death, famine, pestilence, war, and the other less well know horsemen of the "Oh my god how did we not see this coming? We did see it coming and I'm a fuck wit? Oh well pass me the purple kool-aid then."
You're absolutely right there. Humanity and decency have been thrown out of the window with this entire discussion. There are villages in Africa that are discouraged from using fossil fuels despite the fact that their solar panel powered hospitals can't create enough electricity to power both the medical refrigerator and the lights at the same time. Africa is being held down from developing because of UN policies that are blocking their use of fossil fuels simply because of the bogus CO2 argument, which I would note you didn't dispute from my post.
And as for overpopulation problems, most of that is in the developing world, which is being held back by the CO2 driven hysteria. If these nations were allowed to develop, their b
Slashdot Mirror
The CO2 causing warming myth is nothing but media and political hype...
Looking at the data, it's clear to see that CO2 increase follows, not leads, an increase in temperature. If there is causation (thus far only some correlation has been established), then the rise in CO2 is caused by the increase in temperature, not the other way around. 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."
For those that support the CO2 driving the increase, I've yet to see how the climate models explain how the temperature 450 million years ago was colder than it has ever been in the last half billion years, but the CO2 levels were 10 times what we have today. And for those arguing that human activity is driving the increase, why does the rate of increase vary so greatly (particularly looking at the significant decrease in rate during 1991-1993) despite the consistent growth of human CO2 producing activities. The rate should be consistently increasing if human activity were the main driver, but it hasn't been.
I'm not arguing that humanity has no impact on the climate. And, I'm not even really arguing that we are not a significant impact. However, it seems that deforestation along with ever expanding cities with concrete and asphalt that absorb and radiate heat make an even better explanation than CO2, which the data suggest follows temperature rather than temperature following the CO2 increase.
How could you set up a commercially operated prison such that the operator would not benefit from an increased number of incarcerations?
You can't. And, you can't create a system where people won't break rules unless you don't have any rules.
I see many posts on this topic saying (not referring to yours) that we need to eliminate commercial prisons and set things up where this can never happen again. Well, acccording to the current system, this was illegal. You can pass all the laws you like, but corrupt people will always do corrupt things.
We don't need to eliminate commercial prisons if they make economic sense as a way to manage the justice system. What we need to do in this case is to make sure the law says that any judge that does this sort of thing is disbarred and thrown in prison for life. Anyone involved in paying bribes on the prison side should also receive a stiff sentence. AND, their company should lose ALL present and future contracts NATIONWIDE. The victims should also receive IMMENSE damage payments.
Make the costs so high for being corrupt that the companies themselves will make sure it isn't happening. Otherwise, they lose their ENTIRE business. They'll choose smaller, legal profits over none ever again virtually every time. There may still be the occasional idiot, but they'll be out of that business soon enough.
mandated this years ago, we could be using a DB25 connector on our cell phones today!
This should be modded insightful rather than funny. Once you REQUIRE a standard, there's nothing to improve because you can't sell anything better. Sure, it's a bitch to have to buy a new charger when you change phones. But, it'll be a bigger problem people will be whining about when new X power/data interface is created, but you can't get it on your phone because they are legally required to stick with micro usb or whatever the "standard" is.
Is this a problem? Sure. Is the answer to lock down choice? If you never want to change your mind, sure. But, what if you do? Change the standard? And, who decides?
Mea culpa. We collectively pay for the drugs, but you don't need to worry about turning up to the doctor and not being able to afford the drugs you need.
Only for those that can't afford it. Those that can come out of pocket.
Medications are the number one place we need to cut the bureaucracy. I'd start with getting doctors out of the prescription business. Let's eliminate the whole idea of prescriptions. Some will argue that people would abuse medications then, though. We could put controls around medications that are prone to abuse outside of the current process. We already do that with OTC medications that can be used to synthesize methamphetamine. But, the abuse issue is a completely different discussion.
The reason I argue for removing prescriptions is because every time I go to the doctor, I see a drug salesman there pushing the latest pharmeceuticals (none of which have generic alternatives). And, the doctor always prescribes those being pushed even if there are alternatives that do have generic options. It's the centralized bureaucracy of prescriptions that drives up drug costs. The doctors get kick backs for prescribing the brand name drugs. People have to have prescriptions to get their medications. So, guess what medications people have to buy. Of course, they don't "buy" it, their insurance pays for it. More bureaucracy, more costs.
Wal-mart and most major pharmacies offer the majority of generic drugs for $5 or less for a monthly prescription. Almost anyone can afford that. But, the drug companies know that they control the process because they market to the doctors. So, they keep tweaking their products just as their patents run out so that they keep generic options off the table. They put billions into developing drugs that do little if anything to treat conditions better than older products that have generic options. Take the doctors and insurance out of the process and they don't waste their R&D money just to protect cash streams because people are going to go with the generics if the difference in results is not significantly better.
Sure, they'll still be new drugs that don't have generics yet. But, most of those will be drugs that are specifically for catastrophic conditions like cancer or AIDS, in which case REAL insurance that insures for unexpected problems would then kick in and cover it. Maintenance medications like those for blood pressure, cholesterol, acid reflux, etc do have adequate generics that people can afford out of pocket.
The pharmaceutical companies will then have to actually develop things that improve people's health rather than solve the same problems over and again just to keep their cash cow pumping. They'll have to price their products competitively because cost will be a factor in people's purchasing decisions. They'll also be able to do that more easily because they won't be pumping all the development money into products that don't improve the state of health care. They'll actually be accountable because no one is going to pay for things that don't offer enough benefit to justify the price.
The entire system can get much better. But, I believe it has to be one that eliminates as much ancillary activity that is not necessary to providing care for it to be both effective and sustainable. That means we kill the bureaucracies. Then people can both get the care and afford it.
It's fine to offer social support for those that can't manage to get it on their own. But, we can't let all the bureaucrats convince us that we need to keep the same mess, just change the way it's paid for. That seems to be all I've heard from advocates of socialized medicine. That doesn't solve the problem. It just changes it slightly.
If we turned it into a government mess, we would stand a better chance of controlling the costs and cutting down the bureaucracy than we do now. I agree that the insane overhead is the real problem. But the free market has proven itself incapable of removing insane overhead. Every niche, no matter how useless to society as a whole, is exploited and defended. Sure, government protects its entrenched interests too. But this won't be an entrenched interest. So in the process of publicizing health care, we can destroy the current bureaucracy, and with a tiny bit of clever legislation, as well as ongoing citizen oversight, we can keep it from becoming an entrenched government bureaucracy.
Can you name a single government program that has controlled costs and cut down on bureaucracy? It doesn't happen. And health care is certainly not an area where it will happen... at least the way the people want it. The cost reductions come only from rationing, not bureaucratic cuts. To control the costs, you'll have to wade through a bureaucratic mess just to get basic care.
Sure, they could mandate the price of things, but that just means fewer people will go into medicine. We're already experiencing shortages of nurses and some types of doctors because talented people would rather do something else that doesn't require the level of b.s. that has to be dealt with in medicine. So, then you get even more rationing and lower quality of care.
You can't exactly blame the free market for the health care mess... at least the medical side of it. Sure, "insurance" has done more than it's part to screw things up, but that was because it changed the market from a free one to a regulated one. It's just regulated by insurance rather than government. Of course, it's also not free because the government already pays nearly half of all health care costs in the US. We already have a government system. And, it hasn't improved things.
The only way to make things affordable is to destroy the bureaucracy. Government only creates bureaucracy. It never even reduces it.
I can be open to a government provided OPTION for catastrophic care insurance for those that can't afford it. I can even be open to government subsidized primary care for those needing assistance. But, if we continue to allow primary care to be managed by bureaucracy, whether private or government, rather than by patients and doctors themselves, then the costs will grow, the bureaucracy will grow and the mess will only get bigger.
Citizens don't control corporations, but we do control our government.
Really? So, I can blame you for the Iraq war? I can blame you for Guantanamo (which still isn't closed by the way)?
Citizens don't control our government. The mob (and I'm not talking about the Italian guys with the nice suits) does. The corporate lobbyists and mass media control our government. They (the government, lobbyists and media) allow us to think we control it, but don't fool yourself.
And as for corporations, we might not control them, which could be debatable, but they can't use deadly force on us legally. The government can. The lesser of two evils is still evil, but I'd gladly pick the one that can't take my property, freedom or life legally.
We don't have to be afraid of 'losing our government,' because no one but US can take it away from US. I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Could you try to explain it in a little more depth?
We use that term a little differently than other parts of the world. That's how I'm using it here. In parlimentary systems, a party is elected and then it forms the government. We elect people who are members of a party. At least, that's what we claim we do. Most people go in and check the names that have their chosen party associated with them.
So, when I say the purpose is to make people afraid of losing their government, I mean losing the government of the party in control. You've got fearmongering and propaganda on both sides in the US that feeds this. Health care is just another ball in the game they play. Giving more of it to the government (the US government already pays for ~45% of health care costs in the US) just gives the parties another tool to manipulate us with.
And could you give an example of a system that would, in your opinion, give people a guarantee of access to health care?
People have guaranteed access now. But, that's not what you're asking. You're asking for a system that guarantees complete care for anyone without concern for costs.
First, I'm not aware of any system that can guarantee anything. The only guarantee I'm aware of with life is death.
But, I digress...
The problem with the current system is that the costs are outrageous. That's why people can't afford basic care. That's why everyone needs some sort of insurance. And, that is where you find the root of the problem.
Insurance, in health care, is not insurance at all. It's a health payment plan. Real insurance is supposed to insure you against an unexpected loss. Annual check-ups, birth control pills and Viagra are not unexpected. You should pay for those out of your pocket.
Ahh, but they're too expensive you say. Why? The reason is that the insurance companies long ago made it their mission to change their product (which hardly anyone bought by the way) so that it was involved with every aspect of the system. And, so, they pushed it with companies to use as a cheap way to offer compensation for employees. As more and more people joined the program, they began expanding "coverage" until they covered everything.
The problem is, with anything that you separate the driver of the cost from the cost itself, the laws of supply and demand begin to break down. Since care is free, people start going to the doctor for splinters and stubbed toes. So, the insurance companies decided to control the costs. They hired their own doctors. The hired people to process and review claims. They started to require things to be authorized to make sure people were only doing things that they really "needed" to have done. Essentially, they implemented rationing. They also raised their premiums on the other side of the equation.
On the provider side, the doctors had to hire people who were specialists in insurance. They had to hire people to process claims. They had to make sure they complied and followed each companies processes and procedur
You are forgetting the control aspect. If we socialize medicine, people won't be nearly as afraid of losing their jobs, and might not put up with as much crap.
No, they wouldn't. They'd just be afraid of losing their government then. So, whoever manages to get it in is guaranteed reelection, which is the whole point.
The nice thing would be to have a system where people didn't have to worry about losing anything costing them their health. I don't see socialization solving that problem.
Well, in the UK we have evil socialised medicine, so we don't have to pay the full cost of our medically necessary drugs.
You don't pay the full PRICE. You pay the full cost. It just comes in other forms. Despite what people might wish, the government doesn't waive it's magic wand and make costs disappear. It can shift them around and make the price look better. The costs will always be there in one form or another.
It's kind of like energy. Costs cannot be created or destroyed. They can be converted into other forms, however.
The sheer arrogance is unbelievable...
Welcome to Slashdot!
Pure democracy gave us TARP 1, the Porkulus bill, Tarp2 etc..
Don't forget Prop 8, for those that are generally in support of the idea of democracy...
But for now we have a constitution that protects the minority.
For now...
How about we also give 1.5 votes to the disabled? African Americans? LGBT people? Left-handed people? People with type AB-negative blood? Gingers?
How about we dole out votes by how much you actually contribute to society? Sure, that's a vague phrase there that requires elaboration, but the idea that people who choose to be ignorant, uniformed and much more knowledgeable about the American Idol contestants that the candidates and issues should have an equal say to those that make the effort to understand it all and make a positive difference in many people's lives is horrific.
Democracy is a beautiful until you take a good look at it up close. We're nowhere near it in the US yet, but the closer we get, the more screwed up things getting.
It makes more sense than X receiving 51% and Y receiving 49% and Y getting 100% of the votes because X did better nationally. All this system does is officially guarantee a third party will never get electoral votes.
That's what happens when you have two parties deciding how THEY will get elected...
I believe the 17th amendment passed because, as great as that balance and distribution sounds in theory, the practical reality was different.
In practice, the appointment rather than election of Senators provided a wide-open avenue for corrupt appointees, seat buying (see Blagojevich), and a nepotistic entrenchment of political power.
So, are you saying there's no corruption with the current process where senators are working for lobbyists? And, Blago didn't get away with what he was pulling. Times have changed from the early 20th century when the amendment was passed. It's much harder to get away with that sort of thing.
Also, the legislature does the appointing, not a single individual. It's much harder to hide a corrupt conspiracy than a corrupt individual.
no voting system is fair if there are more than two candidates
And the lesser of two evils is still evil...
"The less you know, the easier it is to have a strong opinion about it."
You just captured the entire political process in one sentence.
I will be stealing your statement, sir. That is assuming intellectual property exists. :)
You make an excellent point about both economics and climate science. They are both based on historical data that is used to develop statistical models that fit the data. And, as any statistician would tell you, just because you have a model that fits the data you have doesn't mean you can use it to tell what the future will be.
You point out that the 3 day forecast is hardly wrong. You're right there. But, what about the 30 day forecast? I've been chided many times by people supporting climate change hysteria that weather is not climate. I do find the ridiculousness of that argument amusing, but that's neither here nor there. I would simply argue that the economic models can equal that precision. It's easy for the economic models to predict the state of the economy 3 days out with at least equal or better precision than the weather. Of course, the difference is that our general concern of the weather (outside those losing sleep of the changing climate) is pretty short in time scope. Our concern for economic conditions is usually on the scale of years.
The problem with both (or all three for those that say weather and climate are seperate) is that there is a huge amount of inherent entropy in the system. That's just basic physics. For economics, some would argue that the underlying physics has no influence on the entropy, regardless there is psychology involved which does plenty to throw in chaos. The only way to eliminate the effects of chaos on models is to both holistically understand ALL factors that influence the outputs of a model and also be able to quantify those factors. We certainly don't have that with economics because we don't have the level of understanding of psychology, sociology, etc that influence economics. And, if we had that with weather, we'd know what the weather will be everyday for the next 1000 years.
So, all of our models are flawed and require refinement. Does that mean they offer zero utility to us or do we take what we have understanding they're flawed and work from there?
Give me proof that the basis of economics has been fully exorcised of is misbegotten roots and I still don't believe that individuals will always act to maximize their "utility."
You just need to do some in depth study of economics to understand that it is grown much beyond the initial assumptions. Economic modeling has been as accurate as climate modeling. Economists have predicted the occurrence and impact of the last several economic downturns. There's still much dispute in economics like climate science. The difference is that we get to hear about the disputes in economics. We don't with climatology.
As for the individual maximizing his utility, economics is an aggregate science. The assumption is that on the aggregate (in general) individuals will seek to maximize their own utility. The other assumption that goes along with that is that people would have complete and correct information with which to rationalize those decisions.
The proof that economics has moved beyond its early roots of those two base assumptions is clear when you realize the level to which Game Theory is applied in modern economics. Game Theory expands the model substantially taking it beyond Adam Smith. Those assumptions are still true. However, with perfect information, for an individual to maximize their own utility they must do it in concert with the aggregate. Economics is not based around the atomic individual as in its origins now, but upon the individual in context of a rhizomic, interdependent "game".
The breakdown we still have in this world is the lack of information. Education is what is required to stabilize economies. That allows people to filter out bad information and to collect correct information. Our problem is that we have a populace that is not particularly interested in understanding and would prefer to watch American Idol than develop a deeper understanding of the world. So, irrationality is built into the system. Irrationality is what causes problems with economic modeling because it isn't completely understood, much in the same way that inadequately understood factors, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, solar cycles and cloud activity, cause problems with climate models.
I think you really should dig more into economics before you dismiss it. I felt the same way about climate science before because all of my knowledge and experience of it was through the media, which I know with respect to technical things that I understand produces severely flawed and sensationalized interpretations of them. Anyone here on slashdot can tell you the same. After I started digging into the science, not the media pseudoscience works, it became clear to me that climate science is valid. The scientists are not making these sensational claims. It's the media and political types that are. If you would dig yourself into economics, I would bet that you would have the same realization.
Sorry economics is not even close to being a science.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-economist-has-no-clothes
Wow. You are just hell bent on relying on journalists that have no understanding of anything but the arrangement of words for you information.
That entire diatribe is based on the 19th century view of economics theory. He in no way mentions the developments of Keynes, Friedman, the Austrian school, etc. He insists on debunking economics based on what the theories were when the science first emerged. If that's a fair way to assess a branch of science, I can easily say that climate science is not science because those idiots claimed that we were entering an ice age back in the 1970's, when the Earth has been clearly warming.
He cites no sources, illustrates a complete misunderstanding of modern economics and is using total misinformation to promote his view of things. The article is nothing about a rant on a subject that the author obviously has no understanding of. He challenges it on the ideas that it adopted from physics at the time, which he himself admits was incomplete. He could easily argue that physics is not science either using the reasoning he laid out. However, he does at least admit physics evolved through study and experimentation. What he fails to acknowledge is that Economics has done the same.
Economics IS a science. It's much younger than the sciences of Physics and Chemistry, so it makes sense that it wouldn't be as completely developed yet. It's also a social science, which in and of itself makes it a more difficult endeavor to undertake.
Anyone that doesn't believe that Economics is a science must also take the position that psychology, sociology, anthropology and all the other social sciences are not science either.
It's science and is universally defined as such.
Your evidence suggests there's definitely a statistical over representation of minorities in the judicial system. However, you don't refute the GP's argument with you evidence. You need to have the statistical data with respect to economic conditions as well. What is the economic breakdown of the prison population by race as well as the general population? I suspect that data would move the evidence a bit more in the GP's direction.
The real issue is the economic breakdown by race. Minorities are statistically over represented in the lower levels. We can argue about the why's and how's regarding that. However, I suspect that the prison population correlates somewhat with economic situation even better than race. The racial correlation is based around the economics.
Ok, so its bad if we selectively kill people but we should encourage conditions that speed up evolution despite the fact that it may kill us all. I seriously do not understand how that's better. Why not maximize our chances of living for a long time in current conditions? If you really want people to evolve faster just release some top level predators into the neighborhood.
The CO2 myth is killing people now when hospitals in Africa don't have enough electricity to run both their medical refrigerators and lights at the same time because we're trying to keep them from using any energy source that releases CO2 despite the fact that they have abundant resources to do so.
You're still basing your argument on 2 flawed assumptions:
If you have a plan that will clearly stop all change in the climate, then you should submit it to the Nobel committee. They would certainly have a big check waiting for you.
Is this http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf really pseudoscience? I mean really?
Well, that paper is really only discussing the potential impact on water. It still doesn't offer anything to support the CO2 myth. But, I would consider that paper as science with some politicised embellishment. If you check the list of contributors, you'll find that not all of them are scientists. Quite a few are political people with a political agenda.
Still, looking at the scientific points doesn't seem to indicate anything particularly alarming or unexpected for someone understanding the natural chaos inherent in all natural systems. The paper makes a great point that I continue to argue:
Current water management practices may not be robust enough to cope with the impacts of climate change on water supply reliability, flood risk, health, agriculture, energy and aquatic ecosystems. In many locations, water management cannot satisfactorily cope even with current climate variability, so that large flood and drought damages occur. As a first step, improved incorporation of information about current climate variability into water-related management would assist adaptation to longer-term climate change impacts. Climatic and non-climatic factors, such as growth of population and damage potential, would exacerbate problems in the future (very high confidence). [3.3]
Our real problem isn't the change. It's that we haven't learned to be adaptable. Lightening our requirements from our environment through efficiency is what we have to do in order to be able to adapt. We need to be able to recycle our water. We need to require less energy.
We're not really arguing much on the path that we should take here. We're arguing on the motivation. And, we're not even arguing so much on that. You say if we don't change to be more efficient we won't be able to survive. I totally agree. The only difference of opinion is about what we're trying to accomplish in terms of priority. You're arguing that we need to cut CO2 so that we don't change the climate. The energy efficiency is a secondary benefit. I'm stating that the CO2 argument is completely off base and inconsistent with the evidence. I think we should become efficient because it allows us to adapt to the inevitable change that is coming, both here on Earth and for our eventual move into space. I don't care if CO2 is reduced. If we move in the directions that I would like to see us move, it would be. I just don't believe that the change in CO2 output by humanity would stop the climate change. And, ac
Ok... I'm not going to bother to refute your points this time just a simple dichotomy.
Just a difference in philosophical approach to the subject. It doesn't reflect any of the real human value of either of us. We're still people.
You say "we don't know what will happen" but "total purity of our science is more important than the unknown effects of climate change" therefore "we shouldn't act because we can't know for sure what will happen"
I say we don't "we don't know what will happen" but "global climate change is a risk because of its unknown effects" therefore "we should act to keep the status quo."
I don't say we shouldn't act. I just dispute that we CAN maintain the status quo. I think we should change. We should learn to be more adaptable because we know that change is inevitable regardless. If we keep wasting our efforts to stop the change rather than adapt to it, we are in an entirely futile fight that probably ends in extinction. Of course, given the history of life on this planet, extinction of all species, at least those of any significant complexity, is likely inevitable.
How is your position defendable? Why do we need to know if it will be good bad or genocidal before we make a decision to stop a set of behaviors that are causing changes that NOAA thinks could last for a thousand years even if we acted forcefully now? Who cares if it a causal or leading indicator? Discuss it later, over a not **possibly** totally broken world. You present the most conservative view of skepticism but the most LSD liberal view of the possible effects. Read Collapse by Jared Diamond about what happens when you cut down the last tree. We live on a very small island in the middle of ocean light years wide. What happens if you're wrong? What happens if like the Easter Islanders an American insult of the next century is "I have a piece of your mother stuck in my teeth."
My position is easily defensible. If you don't know what causes something and you don't know what the effects of it are, how can you argue to take an action based on hypothetical scenarios. The entire argument for action is based on the assumption that CO2 increase causes temperature increase. The data and scientific consensus clearly indicate that CO2 increase follows temperature increase. So, why would the NOAA say that we could cut CO2 to zero and the change might still last 1000 years? Because the scientists know that CO2 doesn't drive the change.
If you study the history of the environmental movement and climate science, you will see that the big hysteria before the 1980's was that we were entering an ice age because global temperatures had been falling since the 1940's. There was a program produced by the BBC in the 70's discussing all the doomsday scenarios due to the inevitable ice age. The producer of that program was greatly criticized because he included in his presentation a scientist that argued that we might actually be saved from an ice age by increased CO2 emissions affecting the inevitable cooling. The scientific "consensus" of the time was that an ice age was the inevitable doomsday scenario. The data hasn't changed. The only difference is that from about 1975 on, warming began. So, the doomsday scenario could no longer be an ice age.
Say we took action based on the ice age scenario to counteract the cooling that was being presented as our coming catastrophe before. How would the result, assuming we actually could control these things, be any different than what we've seen? So, had you been around worrying about these things before, you would be satisfied we avoided the catastrophe. The only issue for those that were arguing for action to prevent the ice age is that we didn't change anything to avoid it. And, what if we act now (I'm not sure what that action would be since CO2 has no significant causal effect on temperature) to stop the warming? Assuming we could affect it, what's to say
Change is bad, any change is bad.
Then we're fucked. Change has always been happening and will always happen. If we can't change with it, then we die. It's called evolution. But, from the ignorance of your arguments you may be more of a subscriber of "Intelligent Design". In that case, Jesus will be back to get you soon. :)
One theory is that our temperature has remained artifically stable for the last 10K years because of the gulf stream being shut off as we increased temp. One theory in anthropology is that the only reason we developed a society at all was because of this stability.
Just because that MIGHT be how we got here doesn't mean that we haven't sufficiently developed to survive something different. Technology has changed. Do you think that just because the temperature rises we're going back to caves? Do you think we lose all those gains just because of the change? I find that assertion weak.
Why fuck with a known quantity. risk=damagexlikelyhood again. Damage is totally unknown so why risk it?
If the damage is unknown, how can you even assess the risk? If we're supposed to always assume the worst possible outcome to drive our decisions, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, how do we decide which doomsday scenario to avoid? And, the only "known quantity" that we have is that there is, has been and always will be change. Nothing we can do can stop change from happening. We MIGHT be able to influence things to a degree, but the climate has never, nor will it, stop changing.
Even if you kill all the dumb people 50% of the remaining people will still be dumb, statistics are a bitch. I am obviously being absurdest but my point is still valid. If the conservatives think we can preemptively strike Iraq (killing hundreds of thousands of people) to prevent them from attacking us (when there was no way in hell that they would) why can't I kill the people who are risking the only known habitable planet in the universe so they can what??? Not modify their lazy, arrogant, slothful, greedy, murderous lifestyle?
I don't condone anything that the US has done with respect to Iraq and have great difficulty with much of the approach in Afghanistan. Arguing for the extermination of any opposition that is not an immediate threat to life, whether it be an international or in this case political opponent, is wasteful, ignorant and completely unproductive. And, most importantly, it is a good sign of a weak argument.
What exactly is so important that you are fighting for? Inefficiency. A noble purpose if ever there was one.
What I am fighting for is the honesty and respectability of science. Science is supposed to be based on the scientific method. It is based on collegial, friendly rivalries that are disputed with open and honest debate using all evidence. The open debate is being suppressed because the entire discussion has been hijacked by those with no scientific interest and a driven political agenda. Just research the history of the politization of the issue, which started when Margaret Thatcher used CO2 as an argument to push for nuclear power to break the coal workers union.
As for inefficiency, I have not argued in any way for that. You are making assumptions about my stance on other issues. My only argument is that CO2 does not lead to an increase in temperature. And that is based completely on the evidence and statements of most scientists in the field including many that have been part of the IPCC. I do support efficiency. Efficiency makes perfect sense whether you agree with the CO2 bunk or not. Less energy to accomplish X is better. Costs go down. Benefits to society go up. I'm all for abandoning coal fired power plants. Most of western Europe runs on nuclear. That makes complete sense. I don't need an imaginary CO2 boogeyman to convince me that there are better ways
For example, take the point that the GP made about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere half a billion years ago is news to me. If it's true, it's a fact that is being ignored by much of the current establishment. If it's false, it's yet another red herring. However, it's sounds like something that's easily refuted by anyone who knows where to look for the data. Therefore, I eagerly await any such refutations. If they don't show up, then I'll have to add that to the list of objections that sound like they may actually have some real meat to them.
And the shame is that you haven't heard of that fact. It's because the whole debate has been hijacked by those with a political and economic agenda. The data can be found around the net by searching. Tim Patterson made the observation in a testimony in 2005. Most of the scientists (not the politicians) involved with the IPCC admit that CO2 level increases FOLLOW temperature increases, not lead. And, it's quite interesting in Gore's propaganda film that he shows the graphs of the two on separate axes. The reason why, and he knows it, is that if they were on the same axis, it would be clear to everyone that CO2 increase does not cause temperature increase. If there is any causation there, it's the complete opposite.
The reason for the hysteria is people with a political agenda are pushing the seriously flawed argument that CO2 is driving the temperature increase. They're calling for quick action, despite the fact that we don't have a single shred of evidence that anyone on the planet has experienced anything negative due to warming. The reason they're pushing for quick action is so that their political agenda can be implemented before any possible cooling can happen. That way, if things do cool after their actions, they can take credit and claim that they were right while furthering their POLITICAL agenda. If temperatures don't decrease, they can claim they were still right and force more extreme measures.
I don't argue one way or another about anthropogenic warming. I'm not a climatologist. However, I do have an extensive education and background in developing and using statistical models. The entire "science" behind all of this is based on statistical models. Models require you to make assumptions about how things work. Sure, they're based on historical data, but if you don't properly account for each specific driver in your model, sooner or later it will give you bogus results. If your assumptions in your model or wrong, you can't rely on the output. And, from what I gather, many of these models are relying on CO2 as the driver for temperature increase. So, my simple question, to those that have a clue about the subject, not those that have sold their souls to the hype, is "how does the model account for the 1000% more CO2 levels that existed during the coldest period in the last half billion years compared to today?" For that to be possible, there either is some other factor that is much more significant than CO2 that acts on temperature or CO2 has virtually zero effect on temperature.
Now, please. Someone that has intimate knowledge of the real science and models explain this to me. I completely subscribe to the scientific method. Good evidence of a testable and verifiable hypothesis is all it takes to convince me. But, as far as I can tell, CO2 driven global warming is just below room temperature nuclear fusion at this point.
risk = damage x likelihood
Yes. But, that is a high level view of it. There are multiple levels of estimates of damage as well as probabilities associated with those. Also, you're discounting the argument that global warming could actually benefit humanity by expanding the amount of arable land along with other ideas proposed by scientists that don't think warming is a problem but a good thing.
Lets say that the "worst case possible scenario" for catastrophic global climate change is death of all humans, in that case we can assume that the damage is infinite. If the damage is infinite then even if the likelihood is very very small anything times infinity equals infinity. Resulting in the basic truth that global climate change has basically infinite risk to all humanity. If that is true we have every moral and ethical right to kill people who do not believe in the RISK of climate change. If all it takes is a couple of assholes to kill us all why can't we kill them first? What's the worst case risk there? Lets say 50% of people are dumb and don't believe that they can irreparably harm the planet. We round them up and kill them or sterilize them or cut out their reproductive organs or give them an Ebola milkshake (whatever works.) Worst case; damage, 50% x likelihood, 100% = risk is 50% to the human population. Not so bad. There are 7 billion of us currently, what's 3.5 billion dead if it means we have a chance of surviving until we get hit by a big fucking rock.
Wow. That's the best illustration of the absurdity of the global warming hysteria I've ever seen. At the risk of terminating objective discussion with the N bomb, it seems that a very similar reasoning was used by the Nazi's to justify their concentration camps. Inferior people, for them jews, for you "dumb and don't believe that they can irreparably harm the planet", needed to be exterminated so the superior people, for them the Aryan race, for you the people that "know" anthropogenic warming, particularly based on CO2, is absolute fact.
That's the clearest example to indicate that science is not driving this. Political forces advocate murder. Scientists oppose killing, particularly simply because of a difference of opinion.
Its a variation (taken to a horrific extreme) of Isaac Asimov's freedom of the bathroom quote. "When two people share two bathrooms, each has "freedom of the bathroom." This freedom entails using the resource whenever, for however long, and for whatever purpose one chooses. Unfortunately, when 20 people share those same two bathrooms, freedom of the bathroom disappears. It is a simple metaphor from which he extrapolates the problems of overpopulation-a circumstance he believed would mean the end to democracy, human dignity, convenience and decency.
Nothing we care about can survive exponential population growth. Eventually population growth will stop and when it does (unless it is our choice and even then only if we chose contraception and/or education) its going to mean lots of death, famine, pestilence, war, and the other less well know horsemen of the "Oh my god how did we not see this coming? We did see it coming and I'm a fuck wit? Oh well pass me the purple kool-aid then."
You're absolutely right there. Humanity and decency have been thrown out of the window with this entire discussion. There are villages in Africa that are discouraged from using fossil fuels despite the fact that their solar panel powered hospitals can't create enough electricity to power both the medical refrigerator and the lights at the same time. Africa is being held down from developing because of UN policies that are blocking their use of fossil fuels simply because of the bogus CO2 argument, which I would note you didn't dispute from my post.
And as for overpopulation problems, most of that is in the developing world, which is being held back by the CO2 driven hysteria. If these nations were allowed to develop, their b