Please explain why, if someone claimed that evidence didn't exist for a given theory, a non-retarded person who knew otherwise would accuse them of lying instead of proving it by simply pointing to the evidence.
You'd be arrested for informing the 911 center that their system has a security flaw?
Looks like someone gave the pot smokers have mod points again. Hey, I think the FBI knows about your stash! They're probably on their way to get you now! Better make a run for it!
I disagree with your attempt to make the point that the science on Global Warming is not near concensus. In fact, the vast majority of climate scientists in the country do agree that global temperature is rising.
Sure, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the average global surface temperature has increased over the last 100 years. I agree too. I have no problem with calling that "consensus." However, the belief that that warming is primarily attributable to increased greenhouse gases is a matter of speculation. As a result, the majority of climate scientist do NOT believe it, and those who DO believe it, believe it on the basis of speculation rather than evidence.
You may not be old enough to remember, but Republicans fought each and every new environmental law including the Clean Air act and the Clean Water act. I even believe it was during a Republican administration that we got the former--but the Republican majority did not support any of those, or the Endangered Species Act. In short, this is just more of the same from Republicans: they fight anything that will cause them short-term expense.
This is a complete non sequiter. A political party disagrees with some issues that you support, so anything else they disagree with must necessarily be based on good science? I don't get it.
As a Republican, I have observed that Democrats invariably go overboard on environmental regulation, because they have no concept of the very real and long-term human suffering that is caused by inflicting harm on businesses and the economy. I believe very strongly in protecting the environment, primarily when it becomes an issue of protecting the public health, and secondarily a means of ensuring that we can continue to enjoy our environment. But as in all things, it must be done in the right balance. The most extreme left-wingers seem to want to use environmental regulation as a means of inflicting gratuitous harm on industry, which is obviously very bad for society.
None of this has anything to do with global warming. The global warming debate is over fact, not policy. I have no doubt that very many people, including some scientists, believe with all their hearts in the factuality of runaway greenhouse-gas-induced global warming. Unfortunately, ardent belief in something is contagious, regardless of if it is based on science, evidence or something else. This belief also happens to be extremely convenient for the far-left. The idea that there would be a moral imperative to undermine all of industry and the economy is a marxist's dream. It is the ultimate justification for the transition to the "dictatorship of the proletariat." I'm not suggesting that many people believe in it for this reason. Most people believe in it for the same reason that most people believe in anything -- because their peers believe in it.
CO2 was first recognised as a GHG over a century ago when it was found to absorb long wave infra-red radiation. I have offered thousands of peer-reviewed studies in the form of the IPCC reports, there is not a single scientist in the world who would dispute the basic premise.
I'm well aware that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at frequencies that H2 and O2 do not. Why are you avoiding my question? I'll repeat it. Show me ANYTHING consistent with the scientific method that would lead you to believe that an increase of CO2 from 280ppmv to 380ppmv is capable of causing a measurable increase in average atmospheric temperature. Are you actually claiming that the IPCC reports qualify as peer reviewed studies? The IPCC makes this claim. I'm not aware of any scientific study, or scientific line of reasoning that does.
Politics is making a mockery of science. If you want to argue from evidence, please do. But if you're just going to say that the IPCC must be right and I must be wrong, what's the point? You're just proving yourself a political drone incapable of scientific or rational thought.
Also, while your subject line of "Gump - your a god-damned genius" is clearly a scintillating and mature point of argument, it would have been dramatically more effective (though less humorous) if you had used "you're" instead of "your".
a)There are direct measurements of incoming solar radiation, making all questions as to if we understand the sun irrelevant. We know that the incoming energy has not changed enough to continuously accelerating warming ( in fact, even while incoming radiation has decreased the earth has kept warming quicker and quicker).
Having direct measurements doesn't tell us anything about causality, as we don't have any such measurements across any historical time spans where there was any marked change in climates or surface temperatures.
b)Satelites sweep out the entire earth's surface measuring incoming and outgoing radiation. This has been going on for some time now. Surprise surprise, the main change is a major reduction in light leaving the earth at wavelengths which correspond to the fringes in CO2's absorption spectrum ( the peaks have saturated already ).
Do you have a source for this? The change in radiation at those wavelengths -- did it all happen in the arctic where all the surface warming is?
But he's still your congressman. It's still his job to represent you, even though his beliefs are not a representation of your beliefs. It's part of his job to see to it that the laws serve to protect your constitutional rights, and the general welfare of all the people. The job of a direct-democracy representative would be purely to serve the will of the majority, with no regard for you or your welfare whatsoever.
The beauty of republicanism is that even though the people may only elect a representative by a majority, the representative is then the representative of ALL the people. The social contract is that the people agree to be represented by a representative chosen by the majority. Thus, at least in theory, republicanism is government by the People, by consent of the People, not government by the majority.
A direct-democracy candidate is by definition only and always the representative of the majority, leaving the minority unrepresented. Direct democracy is, both in theory and practice, government by the majority and only the majority. It is therefore arguably the worst possible form of government, as all other forms of tyranny involve a tyranny of a minority, which inherently gives the majority the potential power to forcibly overthrow the tyrants. One cannot overthrow a tyranny of the majority.
I have read the reports also, and your statements leave me with a choice. Either you have spotted an obvious mistake that 2500 Nobel prize winning scientists somehow missed over the last 20 yrs...or...your comprehension is not so good.
What 2500 Nobel prize winning scientists are you talking about? The IRCC report was written by a room-full of negotiating politicians and politicized scientists.
Since I firmly belive in the scientific method I am bound to accept the second premise until you produce something other than a dead horse.
If you believed in the scientific method, you wouldn't believe what you were told without testing it your self or demanding the evidence. I challenge your claim to firmly believe in the scientific method thusly: Show me ANYTHING consistent with the scientific method that would lead you to believe that an increase of CO2 from 280ppmv to 380ppmv is capable of causing a measurable increase in average atmospheric temperature. Actually, forget "measurable." Show that it would cause ANY increase. The only experiment that I'm aware of to determine its effect showed no increase whatsoever. I've been looking for evidence to back up the basis of the "consensus view" for a long time, so if I'd missed it, I'd be very happy to be shown where it is.
That's my point. You keep throwing around numbers as if some guy on the Internet named E++99 is an authority on what percentage of climate scientists believe what. I only know a couple of climate scientists, so I don't qualify as an expert, but the impression I get from them is that your 13% / 14% (you still haven't decided which) number is nonsense. People are asking you to back up your claim because they think you're full of crap on the subject. You seem like a smart guy, but I've seen you throw out factually incorrect assertions based on vague claims without references before, so I'm not inclined to go with you on this one unless you can actually show me a credible source for your numbers.
The truth is still the truth, regardless of how obscure or nameless the person is who is saying it. Sometimes I have the time and inclination to provide sources for everything I say, and sometimes I'm content to just say it. I don't doubt that most here think I'm full of crap -- when I believe that same thing as the majority, I usually keep my mouth shut. I honestly don't care what the actual percentage is enough to find the reference. The actual peer-reviewed climatological papers are full of data and analysis that completely undermines the so-called consensus view. Even if it were one climatologist who was finding this stuff (which it is not), the "consensus view" would still be just as undermined. However, if someone provides a reference to back up the false contention that I responded to, that "the majority of climate scientists [think] we will be in DEEP crap [in 50 years]," then I'd be happy to go to the trouble of finding it for you to rebut.
The chances that you'll actually understand and evaluate the evidence well enough to see things that the experts miss are near zero.
These sound like the words of someone who elevates the opinion to science to a religion. Science is not magic, and you don't have to be ordained into a secret order in order to do it. Some science is difficult. For example understanding Electromagnetics or Quantum Physics requires advanced understanding of vector calculus. The math can be very difficult without the right educational background. But anyone can still learn them if they really want to. Climatology by comparison is easy. There's not a lot of advanced math (probably because there's not a lot of advanced understanding of the subject).
I'll certainly agree with that if you include a major caveat that most Slashdotters seem to miss: If the only exposure you have to the evidence is a cursory surfing of the 'net or what you happened to see on your preferred 24-hour news channel, your best bet is to go with what the scientists say.
No, if you don't have adequate evidence, your best bet is to remain agnostic on the subject. Otherwise you turn yourself into a drone to be controlled by whoever controls the impression of what the "consensus" of the scientific community is. As most people would rather become a pawn of the "scientific consensus" than be considered stupid, pseudo-scientism is the new opiate of the people.
As for my evidence, it comprises all the significant peer-reviewed climatological papers from the last 15 years, and the data the cite, and all the actual raw data from ice core drillings in Antarctica and Greenland, which is provided online by NASA, and enormous amounts of tree ring data, IIRC also provided mostly by NASA. However, you don't have to do your own independent analysis of the raw data to see that Al Gore and the IPCC are full of crap. For a reasonably intelligent person, not being influenced one way or the other, reading the research should be good enough to do that.
Let's see: your first point is about Mr Gore allegedly redefining words. Funny I read several daily newspapers and closely follow this issue and I have not been struck by Mr Gore attempting to redefine words. Is it really that important? More important that the underlying issue of Global Climate Change? Seems to me you're quibbling.
It's not about redefining words, it's about establishing a new global cult or pseudoreligion. The position that morality and spirituality is primarily based upon your carbon footprint is not rational or sane. The fact that the science that he is basing his cult on is bad, is unarguable to anyone basing their judgment on the physical evidence rather than on the authority of others. But even if he was basing his cult on good science, he would still be a force of irrationality, and a force of evil in the world.
Your second point is merely about Bush and is showing your Republican leanings. So, you're an apologist for the Republicans? That's what's really important to you about this issue, that I may have defamed George Bush by implying that he did not win the presidency? Is that really your take away point from this? I am so bored with Republicans...
I am a Republican, but I can only hope that if I were still a Democrat, I would still notice the fact that the two court decisions could not have had any impact on the outcome of the election. And I would also still hopefully get a knot in my stomach whenever people made arguments that defied logic and reality, and say something about it, regardless of which side it was on, as an attempt to return reason to the debate.
You're not going to goad me into finding the paper for you. If you followed the papers published on climatology, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.
It 13 or 14 percent as I recall. It's not really worth looking it up, as people who believe in Global Warming, by definition, do not base their beliefs on evidence, but on the word of authority figures.
If I just took people's word for things, then I would believe Al Gore, the IPCC, and everyone else involved in the most screwed up group-think of our time. Science isn't what scientists say. Science is what the evidence says.
I did read the report, and I'm not spreading nonsense. The report is crap, except where it is mentioning relevant facts (for example the fact that the last interglacial, 120kya, was several degrees warmer than the current one, with higher ocean levels). Fortunately or unfortunately, none of the relevant facts support its conclusions.
They're are the ones who actually write peer-reviewed climatological papers. Try reading some. While there do exist actual climatologists who subscribe to the Gorist religion, they constitute the lunatic fringe of climatology, and are not to be taken seriously.
The source is the latest peer reviewed review of all the peer-reviewed climatological papers published in the last 10 years. I'm sure you're capable of finding it yourself.
If you put scientific faith to determine the validity of a climatological theory which is based on no evidence whatsoever in that list pseudo-political organizations, including the American Institute of Physics and the American Astronomical Society -- oh, plus a wikipedia article, then it's not science that you're interested in -- it's some sort of political or religious ideology.
Believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature:Thousands of highly trained climatologists who have spent their entire professional careers researching the subject.
Don't believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature: You, who have no training and have apparently spent 10 minutes researching the issue.
Fixed it for you:
Believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature: Al Gore, the political hacks at the IPCC, and the saps who elevate them to religious status.
Don't believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature: Thousands of highly trained climatologists who have spent their entire professional careers researching the subject.
As the climate changes, somewhere upwards of a billion coastal dwellers will be displaced.
No they won't. The one thing that is certain about climate change is that the next major change will be the next ice age. At that time, coastal dwellers will no longer be coastal dwellers, as the ocean recedes, glaciation will kill off agriculture, fresh water resources will dry up, and we will have more suffering than at any other time in recorded human history. Now if someone was doing something to prevent THIS problem, I would support giving them a peace prize.
If melting arctic ice shuts down the gulf stream, the temperature decrease could reduce the productivity of farmland in Europe and North America by 75% or more.
And if an asteroid hits Oslo Norway, the cumulative European IQ will increase by 10%. And if Democrats were given smart pills, they would become Republicans. Alas, all these things will remain theoretical though.
Add to that the fact that the world will know in advance who is primarily responsible for the CO2 emissions that f*cked up their countries (1st world nations, most notably the US), and will be looking for someone to blame.
Except that this is science fiction. While, largely thanks to Gore, it is now a reputable and popular theory among world politicians and bureaucrats, it remains a fringe theory with as many detractors as supporters among climatologist. Of course most climatologists don't bother weighing in at all, as it is not a theory based on any evidence.
While the IPCC report contains SOME established science, nothing in the report that supports their predictions even RESEMBLES established science.
Recent observation here in Australia also seem to show an "exaggeragion" over IPCC predictions...it's 2007 predictions for Australia and the Artic are starting to look very conservative
That's because the IPCC report doesn't actually contain predictive power.
It doesn't matter if Mr. Bush lives in a thatched shed and uses biogas to light up his dwelling. He is responsible for the energy consumption of the entire USA, not just his hut.
Bush is responsible for the energy consumption of the entire USA? Wow, I guess George Washington was way off base in refusing a crown, and insisting on the humble mode of address of "Mr. President" instead of "Your Highness" or "Your Lordship" or whatnot. I'm sorry, but I will continue to cling to the idea of a nation of free people, and continue to live as if that is the case. The alternative is far too depressing.
or perhaps they are a member of the intergovernmental panel on climate change,. made up of scientific experts from every country on Earth who have agreed that man is the factor.
No, the IPCC is composed of politicians, and politicized scientists, a large portion of whom resigned in disgust over the work that was being done there.
No offence, but who the fuck are you that your scientific understanding trumps every respected climate expert alive?
The vast majority of climate scientists take no position, there being no evidence. Of the rest about half support the IPCC theory, and about half oppose it. The question is, when will you start resisting the Gore mind-control beams and open your eyes to reality?
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain why, if someone claimed that evidence didn't exist for a given theory, a non-retarded person who knew otherwise would accuse them of lying instead of proving it by simply pointing to the evidence.
You'd be arrested for informing the 911 center that their system has a security flaw?
Looks like someone gave the pot smokers have mod points again. Hey, I think the FBI knows about your stash! They're probably on their way to get you now! Better make a run for it!
Sure, the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the average global surface temperature has increased over the last 100 years. I agree too. I have no problem with calling that "consensus." However, the belief that that warming is primarily attributable to increased greenhouse gases is a matter of speculation. As a result, the majority of climate scientist do NOT believe it, and those who DO believe it, believe it on the basis of speculation rather than evidence.
This is a complete non sequiter. A political party disagrees with some issues that you support, so anything else they disagree with must necessarily be based on good science? I don't get it.
As a Republican, I have observed that Democrats invariably go overboard on environmental regulation, because they have no concept of the very real and long-term human suffering that is caused by inflicting harm on businesses and the economy. I believe very strongly in protecting the environment, primarily when it becomes an issue of protecting the public health, and secondarily a means of ensuring that we can continue to enjoy our environment. But as in all things, it must be done in the right balance. The most extreme left-wingers seem to want to use environmental regulation as a means of inflicting gratuitous harm on industry, which is obviously very bad for society.
None of this has anything to do with global warming. The global warming debate is over fact, not policy. I have no doubt that very many people, including some scientists, believe with all their hearts in the factuality of runaway greenhouse-gas-induced global warming. Unfortunately, ardent belief in something is contagious, regardless of if it is based on science, evidence or something else. This belief also happens to be extremely convenient for the far-left. The idea that there would be a moral imperative to undermine all of industry and the economy is a marxist's dream. It is the ultimate justification for the transition to the "dictatorship of the proletariat." I'm not suggesting that many people believe in it for this reason. Most people believe in it for the same reason that most people believe in anything -- because their peers believe in it.
I'm well aware that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at frequencies that H2 and O2 do not. Why are you avoiding my question? I'll repeat it. Show me ANYTHING consistent with the scientific method that would lead you to believe that an increase of CO2 from 280ppmv to 380ppmv is capable of causing a measurable increase in average atmospheric temperature. Are you actually claiming that the IPCC reports qualify as peer reviewed studies? The IPCC makes this claim. I'm not aware of any scientific study, or scientific line of reasoning that does.
Politics is making a mockery of science. If you want to argue from evidence, please do. But if you're just going to say that the IPCC must be right and I must be wrong, what's the point? You're just proving yourself a political drone incapable of scientific or rational thought.
Also, while your subject line of "Gump - your a god-damned genius" is clearly a scintillating and mature point of argument, it would have been dramatically more effective (though less humorous) if you had used "you're" instead of "your".
Having direct measurements doesn't tell us anything about causality, as we don't have any such measurements across any historical time spans where there was any marked change in climates or surface temperatures.
Do you have a source for this? The change in radiation at those wavelengths -- did it all happen in the arctic where all the surface warming is?
But he's still your congressman. It's still his job to represent you, even though his beliefs are not a representation of your beliefs. It's part of his job to see to it that the laws serve to protect your constitutional rights, and the general welfare of all the people. The job of a direct-democracy representative would be purely to serve the will of the majority, with no regard for you or your welfare whatsoever.
The beauty of republicanism is that even though the people may only elect a representative by a majority, the representative is then the representative of ALL the people. The social contract is that the people agree to be represented by a representative chosen by the majority. Thus, at least in theory, republicanism is government by the People, by consent of the People, not government by the majority.
A direct-democracy candidate is by definition only and always the representative of the majority, leaving the minority unrepresented. Direct democracy is, both in theory and practice, government by the majority and only the majority. It is therefore arguably the worst possible form of government, as all other forms of tyranny involve a tyranny of a minority, which inherently gives the majority the potential power to forcibly overthrow the tyrants. One cannot overthrow a tyranny of the majority.
What 2500 Nobel prize winning scientists are you talking about? The IRCC report was written by a room-full of negotiating politicians and politicized scientists.
If you believed in the scientific method, you wouldn't believe what you were told without testing it your self or demanding the evidence. I challenge your claim to firmly believe in the scientific method thusly: Show me ANYTHING consistent with the scientific method that would lead you to believe that an increase of CO2 from 280ppmv to 380ppmv is capable of causing a measurable increase in average atmospheric temperature. Actually, forget "measurable." Show that it would cause ANY increase. The only experiment that I'm aware of to determine its effect showed no increase whatsoever. I've been looking for evidence to back up the basis of the "consensus view" for a long time, so if I'd missed it, I'd be very happy to be shown where it is.
The truth is still the truth, regardless of how obscure or nameless the person is who is saying it. Sometimes I have the time and inclination to provide sources for everything I say, and sometimes I'm content to just say it. I don't doubt that most here think I'm full of crap -- when I believe that same thing as the majority, I usually keep my mouth shut. I honestly don't care what the actual percentage is enough to find the reference. The actual peer-reviewed climatological papers are full of data and analysis that completely undermines the so-called consensus view. Even if it were one climatologist who was finding this stuff (which it is not), the "consensus view" would still be just as undermined. However, if someone provides a reference to back up the false contention that I responded to, that "the majority of climate scientists [think] we will be in DEEP crap [in 50 years]," then I'd be happy to go to the trouble of finding it for you to rebut.
These sound like the words of someone who elevates the opinion to science to a religion. Science is not magic, and you don't have to be ordained into a secret order in order to do it. Some science is difficult. For example understanding Electromagnetics or Quantum Physics requires advanced understanding of vector calculus. The math can be very difficult without the right educational background. But anyone can still learn them if they really want to. Climatology by comparison is easy. There's not a lot of advanced math (probably because there's not a lot of advanced understanding of the subject).
No, if you don't have adequate evidence, your best bet is to remain agnostic on the subject. Otherwise you turn yourself into a drone to be controlled by whoever controls the impression of what the "consensus" of the scientific community is. As most people would rather become a pawn of the "scientific consensus" than be considered stupid, pseudo-scientism is the new opiate of the people.
As for my evidence, it comprises all the significant peer-reviewed climatological papers from the last 15 years, and the data the cite, and all the actual raw data from ice core drillings in Antarctica and Greenland, which is provided online by NASA, and enormous amounts of tree ring data, IIRC also provided mostly by NASA. However, you don't have to do your own independent analysis of the raw data to see that Al Gore and the IPCC are full of crap. For a reasonably intelligent person, not being influenced one way or the other, reading the research should be good enough to do that.
It's not about redefining words, it's about establishing a new global cult or pseudoreligion. The position that morality and spirituality is primarily based upon your carbon footprint is not rational or sane. The fact that the science that he is basing his cult on is bad, is unarguable to anyone basing their judgment on the physical evidence rather than on the authority of others. But even if he was basing his cult on good science, he would still be a force of irrationality, and a force of evil in the world.
I am a Republican, but I can only hope that if I were still a Democrat, I would still notice the fact that the two court decisions could not have had any impact on the outcome of the election. And I would also still hopefully get a knot in my stomach whenever people made arguments that defied logic and reality, and say something about it, regardless of which side it was on, as an attempt to return reason to the debate.
You're not going to goad me into finding the paper for you. If you followed the papers published on climatology, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.
It 13 or 14 percent as I recall. It's not really worth looking it up, as people who believe in Global Warming, by definition, do not base their beliefs on evidence, but on the word of authority figures.
If I just took people's word for things, then I would believe Al Gore, the IPCC, and everyone else involved in the most screwed up group-think of our time. Science isn't what scientists say. Science is what the evidence says.
No, you are.
I did read the report, and I'm not spreading nonsense. The report is crap, except where it is mentioning relevant facts (for example the fact that the last interglacial, 120kya, was several degrees warmer than the current one, with higher ocean levels). Fortunately or unfortunately, none of the relevant facts support its conclusions.
They're are the ones who actually write peer-reviewed climatological papers. Try reading some. While there do exist actual climatologists who subscribe to the Gorist religion, they constitute the lunatic fringe of climatology, and are not to be taken seriously.
The source is the latest peer reviewed review of all the peer-reviewed climatological papers published in the last 10 years. I'm sure you're capable of finding it yourself.
If you put scientific faith to determine the validity of a climatological theory which is based on no evidence whatsoever in that list pseudo-political organizations, including the American Institute of Physics and the American Astronomical Society -- oh, plus a wikipedia article, then it's not science that you're interested in -- it's some sort of political or religious ideology.
It comes from the latest review of peer reviewed climatology papers.
Fixed it for you:
Believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature: Al Gore, the political hacks at the IPCC, and the saps who elevate them to religious status.
Don't believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature: Thousands of highly trained climatologists who have spent their entire professional careers researching the subject.
That's the rub exactly. And my new position as well on my future Nobel Prize.
No they won't. The one thing that is certain about climate change is that the next major change will be the next ice age. At that time, coastal dwellers will no longer be coastal dwellers, as the ocean recedes, glaciation will kill off agriculture, fresh water resources will dry up, and we will have more suffering than at any other time in recorded human history. Now if someone was doing something to prevent THIS problem, I would support giving them a peace prize.
And if an asteroid hits Oslo Norway, the cumulative European IQ will increase by 10%. And if Democrats were given smart pills, they would become Republicans. Alas, all these things will remain theoretical though.
Except that this is science fiction. While, largely thanks to Gore, it is now a reputable and popular theory among world politicians and bureaucrats, it remains a fringe theory with as many detractors as supporters among climatologist. Of course most climatologists don't bother weighing in at all, as it is not a theory based on any evidence.
While the IPCC report contains SOME established science, nothing in the report that supports their predictions even RESEMBLES established science.
That's because the IPCC report doesn't actually contain predictive power.
Bush is responsible for the energy consumption of the entire USA? Wow, I guess George Washington was way off base in refusing a crown, and insisting on the humble mode of address of "Mr. President" instead of "Your Highness" or "Your Lordship" or whatnot. I'm sorry, but I will continue to cling to the idea of a nation of free people, and continue to live as if that is the case. The alternative is far too depressing.
No, the IPCC is composed of politicians, and politicized scientists, a large portion of whom resigned in disgust over the work that was being done there.
The vast majority of climate scientists take no position, there being no evidence. Of the rest about half support the IPCC theory, and about half oppose it. The question is, when will you start resisting the Gore mind-control beams and open your eyes to reality?
14% is not a consensus. It is a political theory which 14% of climate scientists subscribe to. It is not a scientific theory.