"Puppies supporters say that slew of "eno award" wins this year can at least partially be attributed to the fact that SJW votes were concentrated on that choice, while Puppies votes were distributed between as many as four deserving authors.
First, all of the "no award" wins won by a majority on the first ballot. Even if all of the puppy voters had agreed on a single candidate-- they still wouldn't comprise a majority. That argument is false.
Second, that argument is by somebody who doesn't understand how the ballot functions. It works for the nominations, but not for the actual votes, which use a "single transferable ballot" (aka, "australian ballot"). When your first choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice. So, if the puppy vote was distributed between four authors-- so what? As each candidate is eliminated, that vote doesn't go away.
If an argument contains a logical fallacy it means the argument should be discarded as it is wrong.
If an argument contains a logical fallacy then the argument should be discarded. The "fallacy fallacy" points out that this does not imply that the conclusion must be discarded. The conclusion may or may not be wrong: you can't draw a conclusion from a wrong argument.
It's ironic in this case that your appeal for acceptance of arguments containing logical fallacies makes both statements incapable of being evaluated.
At no point did I appeal for the acceptance of arguments containing logical fallacies.
The no awards didn't receive a majority, but rather a narrow plurality.
So if you're going to complain about slanted news it behooves you not to engage in the practice.
Nope.
In every single one of the categories in which NO AWARD won, it won on the first ballot with a majority.
The closest was in editor, long form, where the results were:
No Award 2496 Toni Weisskopf 1216 Sheila Gilbert 754 Anne Sowards 217 Vox Day 166 Jim Minz 58 Total votes 4907
But 50.9% is a majority. (The other categories were not nearly as close.)
I'm rather sorry for Toni, who I rather like, and who might well have won in the absence of the puppy-only ballot. If she had won, I would have said "well deserved."
Your fallacy is false dichotomy. Just because [xx] is a bad or unreliable commentator, doesn't mean that Breitbart is a good or reliable commentator
In fact, Breitbard is not a reliable source.
rather than actually pointing out anything untrue or misleading about what he wrote. If you see something he wrote that is untrue or misleading, spit it out. Otherwise, piss off.
Many people did so. His headline is backwards from the truth. The fans vote was for "no award."
Yeah, the headline is false- in fact, it is backwards.
The fans voted for no award.
No award wasn't instead of the fans' votes: it was the fans' vote.
(not in all categories, though.)
-- this is an artifact of the fact that it only takes a plurality to get on the ballot, but it takes a majority to win (with single transferable vote). So a small groups can get works on the ballot, if the rest of the nominators are split, but if the majority doesn't like those works, a small group can't make those works win.
It also specifically mentions "a well regulated militia" but most gun rights advocates conveniently forget that part.
Are you sure you know what "well-regulated" means in that context?
I'm not actually sure if anybody knows what "well regulated" means in this context. I would, for example, interpret this as meaning that the government can (in fact, should) regulate arms, but can't forbid carrying them.
Then you would be wrong. You have a right to be wrong, but thankfully you have no right to force that on others.
Wrong on the first part, correct on the second. I have no claim to, nor interest in, forcing my interpretation onto anybody else.
Nor do you.
As I said: Many many people have argued many many other interpretations.
...[quotes from D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision]
You selectively skipped over a vast swatch of the opinion. They very clearly wrote that the second clause of the amendment is to be interpreted in light of the first clause. That's why the decision spend so much time discussing the first part: it's a single-sentence amendment, and you can't ignore part of the sentence and say you'll only pay attention to the other part. But the decision also clearly stated that the initial clause does not negate the "shall not be infringed" part and cannnot be used as a justification to write regulations that negate the second part.
That makes sense to me.
They went on to say that the DC regulations, by requiring guns in a home to be unloaded, essentially did constitute a ban on having and carrying arms (since an unloaded gun is not "arms" in any real sense of the word. The DC law didn't have any exception saying "well, you're allowed to load the gun if a burglar breaks into your home.")
Seems like a good decision. It is perfectly consistent with what I just said: regulating is allowed, but banning is not, with the clarification that the regulation can't be regulations that are de facto bans.
If (part of) the 1st Amendment had been written "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." would you just as quickly attempt to justify banning literature? Or would you support regulation if the government only kept books out of the hands of those who do not vote?
You just switched from the word "regulating" to the word "banning".
This is why it is impossible to have any conversation with gun nuts: if a mention of any form of regulation is brought up, the nuts say "you can't ban our guns!"
In other old news, a lot of cameras are sensitive to infrared, and they use a blueish filter to limit themselves to the visible spectrum. Removing that and adding another filter for the higher frequencies is a cheap way to convert the phone's own camera for thermal imaging.
Yes to the first part, no to the second.
Most cameras use silicon detectors (because they're cheap). Silicon is sensitive out to about 1 micron wavelength. Humans can't see much past 0.7 microns, so silicon is sensitive to some of the spectrum that's in the infrared... but one micron isn't yet in the thermal infrared, so you won't see heat from stuff that's around 310 K (body temperature) or so with a camera not specifially designed to go farther into the IR.
I'm not actually sure if anybody knows what "well regulated" means in this context.
It is clear YOU don't know. The rest of us, well, we do know.
Yes, lots of people do claim, with perfect and unshakable confidence, that they know exactly what that clause means.
Since they firmly and confidently assert different things, they can't all be right. And I don't see any particular reason to think that that any of them, except by statistical average, are right. Much less you. The more confident a person's opinion is that they know exactly what the clause means, the less I trust their judgement.
It means "well armed, equipped, and trained".
No, it means "well regulated." That's what it says. Explicitly.
Whatever it may mean, it does not authorize the government to outlaw arms guaranteed by the very next clause.
Yes, that part of the right seems pretty clear. It's the first part that is unclear.
(except for the part about "non-criminals" that you just slickly inserted into it. That part is not anywhere in the amendment.)
So, you're saying that the government-- you do understand that the constitution is about the government, right?-- should require that people who own guns should have proper discipline and training "imposed" on them.
It also specifically mentions "a well regulated militia" but most gun rights advocates conveniently forget that part.
Are you sure you know what "well-regulated" means in that context?
I'm not actually sure if anybody knows what "well regulated" means in this context.
I would, for example, interpret this as meaning that the government can (in fact, should) regulate arms, but can't forbid carrying them. But many many people have argued many many other interpretations.
But even there-- how much regulation is "well regulated" without shading into the "abridging" region?
Politically the Viking 1 success was a huge win for the U.S. against the competing Soviet space program.
I always thought it was kind of a "gentleman's agreement", we went to Mars and the Russians went to Venus.
Nope. The Russians sent probes to both planets. it just happened that their Mars probes failed, and their Venus probes (after the first handful) mostly succeeded.
Why bring politics into it. The Russians have physically landed on Venus and no one else has even come close,
Two of the NASA Pioneer atmospheric probes landed on the surface, even though landiing was not a mission objective. One of them continued to transmit after landing, so no, the Russian are not the only ones to successfully land on the surface of Venus.
Pretty reasonable-- at that level, you're still underneath about 10 tons/m2 of shielding by atmosphere
And fiction aside, why would someone want to colonize a floating death trap? Why not colonize the surface of the ocean for 1 billionth the price and risk?
I suppose then that the USSR's Mars 3 explorer in 1971 must be a figment of my imagination.
I would think that it's reasonable to require that the probe transmit at least one image from the surface before saying that it's successful. Landing and immediately failing is not really a success.
I never once attacked science. I'm a fan of science, I love science, the results of science, combined with a little I implement when problem solving, are how I make my living. It's how I've made my living since I've been making a living.
I've been plotting the Manabe and Weatherald 1967 model-- the one in which the only feedback was an assumption of constant humidity-- and also the predictions of the 1979 National Academy of Sciences report against the actual measurements using the actual carbon dioxide numbers for several years now, and the data is so far matching predictions. Predictions do not require "200% calibration factors". All the model assumes is constant humidity.
It's possible that this assumption needs to be tweaked. But this seems a reasonable first order result, and it seems to be quite good.
The models have been predicting quite well since 1967, which is not quite fifty years. Seems pretty damn good to me.
The denialists have put in a pretty slick "damned if you do, damned if you don't" trap, haven't they? Their criticism of the 1967 and 1979 models was "but what about all of these possible feedback effects, which you assumed were only small corrections to the model? We refuse to believe the models until you incorporate all the feedbacks!" And now that the models do incorporate all the feedbacks (in the process showing that they were, in fact, small corrections), they're saying "Your models have all these feedbacks, we don't believe them!"
Your link to Wikipedia was a link to the "little ice age" article. It's a nice article, but it's not a "question" about climate modelling.
Got it. The New York Times is a denier blog, I thought it was a left wing propaganda machine.
Your link to the New York Times was a link to an article about a guy who falsified research about a HIV vaccine. An interesting article... but your link text was accurate: "Oh look! It's about vaccines, but it has nothing to do with Autism so it doesn't really count. "
Exactly. It's not a denier, it's not an anti-denier... it's just completely irrelevant.
You are linking a bunch of irrelevant shit, and saying "hey, you sort through this shit. Maybe somewhere in there there is something relevant."
No, thanks
As for Watts up with That? I generally referenced it for the collection of references. I don't actually read the site,
That's wise.
I did a search for something mentioning the fact that records were altered. The one incident in particular I recall involved people actually getting information directly from a weather station's archives in Antarctica that disagreed with what NASA/NOAA published as what that very station said.
So, basically, what you are saying is that you vaguely remember something but don't have a link or details, you thought maybe it was on wattsupwiththat but you can't find it, so why don't I do the work and look it up?
I just told you. I'm not interested in digging through shit.
Nothing creates exceptions to the rule like an emergency. If you don't have an emergency sometimes it pays to create one. For those who see through the cloud, call them crazy, it will keep everyone else from paying attention to them. Then you can use the propaganda to control the people. I'm a conservationist, I do believe we're generally screwing up the planet on which we live. I like doing "green" things. I try to minimize packaging, which goes right out the window when I order off the web, but still "family size" is my choice. I prefer as fuel efficient of a vehicle as I can get, for multitudes of reasons and can't wait for a chance at an Elio. I'm a cyclist when I can be. I try to minimize my pollution and foot print for the same reason the hippies say I should. Fortunately I have a wife who's really into natural cleaning products and what have you, we're shifting towards those, we were already doing less harmful stuff, but now she's making all sorts of household products. I admit to having mixed feelings towards some of those. I go non-GMO/organic as much as possible. I think doing these things makes sense. I think green energy, like wind and solar, when done properly, is the right thing to do for the environment and for capitalistic reasons, free fuel.
Good for you, but I don't actually give a damn about any of those things. I do give a damn about people who are attempting to discredit science because it's an easy way to score policy points.
I think most climate alarmism is bullshit and it's being used to implement Agenda 21, which is not completely bad, but at it's core removes freedom when implemented through trickery and manipulation.
Ah, a garden variety conspiracy theory. So, the conspiracy flavor of the day is "Agenda 21." I know a lot of atmospheric scientists. I have never heard one-- not one-- mention "Agenda 21", even as a passing reference. None, ever.
Basically: you're wrong. This is just simply not what scientists do. Pushing some policy agenda is what a public relations push funded primarily by oil companies wants you to believe scientists do... but it's just not how science actually works.
I think there's a lot of great ideas with Agenda 21
All competent computer modelers can get the model to tell them anything they want. I'd go so far as to use that as the definition of 'competent modeler'.
You might think so. It's harder than you'd expect. The models have to match day-night temperature variation, variation with altitude, latitude and season, and-- these days-- they have to get not only the average cloud coverage, but the patterns of clouds right. The models have to be pretty darn close to correct to get all that right, and that hasn't even started looking at historical climate.
Here's an interesting thing, though. There are about twenty different groups, on four continents, running different climate models. They vary considerably in their results-- that variation is the uncertainty in the IPCC climate sensitivity. But they all show greenhouse warming.
So, here's my question. The public-relations effort devoted to casting doubt on climate science is funded at roughly $100 million per year. At that funding level, it would be simple enough for them to devote a few million to taking one of the climate models (most of them are open source) and tweaking those variables to produce a result showing no greenhouse warming.
If it's so easy to tweak the input numbers and get-- in your phrase-- "anything they want"... why don't they? Why isn't there a plausible null-hypothesis showing no global warming?
Sorry, but here's an important lesson for you. Memorize this simple rule: Never get your science information from the opinion/editorial pages of Forbes magazine.
Forbes is a business magazine. It's not a science magazine. It doesn't even pretend to be a science magazine. It's a bad source for science information, because they are editorializing to make a point, not to understand how climate works.
Track down original sources. Don't rely on editorials in Forbes. Since you get your data from business magazines and blogs, here's a blog post you might look at: http://variable-variability.bl... But, let's look at that Forbes link. The particular editorial you linked has two links... one to a graph with no source listed, and the second to a long paper... with no information on where this paper was published (or if it was) or who it was reviewed by. But-- paydirt!-- that paper does list where the data comes from: the NASA Water Vapor Project. So let's look at the data from the source.
And the CO2/H2O vapor feedback coefficient is the single number they use to 'tune' the climate models to get the amount of warming they want.
In the original Manabe and Wetherald model, the "tuning" was simply an input assumption that the relative humidity remains constant.
If you think that this results in too high feedback, you are essentially stating a hypothesis that humidity goes down as temperature rises. Would you like to come up with a physical reason for that assumption?
The models fit the observed data pretty well-- not just in overall temperature, but in parameters like day/night temperature variation (which is a more sensitive probe of the greenhouse effect). If you think that this is just a coincidence, you should also entertain the possibility that the feedback in the models could also be wrong in the opposite direction, too low, which means that the predictions of greenhouse warming are too low.
But somehow the deniers never like to point out the case "if the science is wrong, that means that it's possible that the warming is actually a lot worse than predicted."
I would like to kvetch that by picking a 120 month average for a data set that only spans 420 months
Yeah. There is an 11 year cycle. A 120
[month]
moving average smooths this out so you can see the long term trend.
You could... except that when you take a 120-month average on a data set that only spans 420 months, what you just did is compress the data down to a curve that is effectively only 2 and 2/3 points (keeping in mind that the first 60 months and the last 60 months are now truncated from the graph).
You've removed the noise... but there's not much information left, either.
Slashdot Mirror
"Puppies supporters say that slew of "eno award" wins this year can at least partially be attributed to the fact that SJW votes were concentrated on that choice, while Puppies votes were distributed between as many as four deserving authors.
First, all of the "no award" wins won by a majority on the first ballot. Even if all of the puppy voters had agreed on a single candidate-- they still wouldn't comprise a majority. That argument is false.
Second, that argument is by somebody who doesn't understand how the ballot functions. It works for the nominations, but not for the actual votes, which use a "single transferable ballot" (aka, "australian ballot"). When your first choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice. So, if the puppy vote was distributed between four authors-- so what? As each candidate is eliminated, that vote doesn't go away.
If an argument contains a logical fallacy it means the argument should be discarded as it is wrong.
If an argument contains a logical fallacy then the argument should be discarded. The "fallacy fallacy" points out that this does not imply that the conclusion must be discarded. The conclusion may or may not be wrong: you can't draw a conclusion from a wrong argument.
It's ironic in this case that your appeal for acceptance of arguments containing logical fallacies makes both statements incapable of being evaluated.
At no point did I appeal for the acceptance of arguments containing logical fallacies.
The no awards didn't receive a majority, but rather a narrow plurality.
So if you're going to complain about slanted news it behooves you not to engage in the practice.
Nope.
In every single one of the categories in which NO AWARD won, it won on the first ballot with a majority.
The closest was in editor, long form, where the results were:
No Award 2496
Toni Weisskopf 1216
Sheila Gilbert 754
Anne Sowards 217
Vox Day 166
Jim Minz 58
Total votes 4907
But 50.9% is a majority. (The other categories were not nearly as close.)
I'm rather sorry for Toni, who I rather like, and who might well have won in the absence of the puppy-only ballot. If she had won, I would have said "well deserved."
That was then. This is now.
I trust him more than [xx]
Your fallacy is false dichotomy. Just because [xx] is a bad or unreliable commentator, doesn't mean that Breitbart is a good or reliable commentator
In fact, Breitbard is not a reliable source.
rather than actually pointing out anything untrue or misleading about what he wrote. If you see something he wrote that is untrue or misleading, spit it out. Otherwise, piss off.
Many people did so. His headline is backwards from the truth. The fans vote was for "no award."
Yeah, the headline is false- in fact, it is backwards.
The fans voted for no award.
No award wasn't instead of the fans' votes: it was the fans' vote.
(not in all categories, though.)
-- this is an artifact of the fact that it only takes a plurality to get on the ballot, but it takes a majority to win (with single transferable vote). So a small groups can get works on the ballot, if the rest of the nominators are split, but if the majority doesn't like those works, a small group can't make those works win.
Please explain how a fallacy could be true.
It's literally defined as being a false belief or a failure in reasoning.
It's the "fallacy fallacy."
If you conclude that because a line of reasoning contains a fallacy, the statement reasoned about is false, you just fell into the fallacy fallacy..
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.c...
It also specifically mentions "a well regulated militia" but most gun rights advocates conveniently forget that part.
Are you sure you know what "well-regulated" means in that context?
I'm not actually sure if anybody knows what "well regulated" means in this context. I would, for example, interpret this as meaning that the government can (in fact, should) regulate arms, but can't forbid carrying them.
Then you would be wrong. You have a right to be wrong, but thankfully you have no right to force that on others.
Wrong on the first part, correct on the second. I have no claim to, nor interest in, forcing my interpretation onto anybody else.
Nor do you.
As I said:
Many many people have argued many many other interpretations.
...[quotes from D.C. v. Heller Supreme Court decision]
You selectively skipped over a vast swatch of the opinion. They very clearly wrote that the second clause of the amendment is to be interpreted in light of the first clause. That's why the decision spend so much time discussing the first part: it's a single-sentence amendment, and you can't ignore part of the sentence and say you'll only pay attention to the other part. But the decision also clearly stated that the initial clause does not negate the "shall not be infringed" part and cannnot be used as a justification to write regulations that negate the second part.
That makes sense to me.
They went on to say that the DC regulations, by requiring guns in a home to be unloaded, essentially did constitute a ban on having and carrying arms (since an unloaded gun is not "arms" in any real sense of the word. The DC law didn't have any exception saying "well, you're allowed to load the gun if a burglar breaks into your home.")
Seems like a good decision. It is perfectly consistent with what I just said: regulating is allowed, but banning is not, with the clarification that the regulation can't be regulations that are de facto bans.
If (part of) the 1st Amendment had been written "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." would you just as quickly attempt to justify banning literature? Or would you support regulation if the government only kept books out of the hands of those who do not vote?
You just switched from the word "regulating" to the word "banning".
This is why it is impossible to have any conversation with gun nuts: if a mention of any form of regulation is brought up, the nuts say "you can't ban our guns!"
In other old news, a lot of cameras are sensitive to infrared, and they use a blueish filter to limit themselves to the visible spectrum. Removing that and adding another filter for the higher frequencies is a cheap way to convert the phone's own camera for thermal imaging.
Yes to the first part, no to the second.
Most cameras use silicon detectors (because they're cheap). Silicon is sensitive out to about 1 micron wavelength. Humans can't see much past 0.7 microns, so silicon is sensitive to some of the spectrum that's in the infrared... but one micron isn't yet in the thermal infrared, so you won't see heat from stuff that's around 310 K (body temperature) or so with a camera not specifially designed to go farther into the IR.
A simpler solution: press more numbers after you press "enter" on the keypad.
I'm not actually sure if anybody knows what "well regulated" means in this context.
It is clear YOU don't know. The rest of us, well, we do know.
Yes, lots of people do claim, with perfect and unshakable confidence, that they know exactly what that clause means.
Since they firmly and confidently assert different things, they can't all be right. And I don't see any particular reason to think that that any of them, except by statistical average, are right. Much less you. The more confident a person's opinion is that they know exactly what the clause means, the less I trust their judgement.
It means "well armed, equipped, and trained".
No, it means "well regulated." That's what it says. Explicitly.
Whatever it may mean, it does not authorize the government to outlaw arms guaranteed by the very next clause.
Yes, that part of the right seems pretty clear. It's the first part that is unclear.
(except for the part about "non-criminals" that you just slickly inserted into it. That part is not anywhere in the amendment.)
So, you're saying that the government-- you do understand that the constitution is about the government, right?-- should require that people who own guns should have proper discipline and training "imposed" on them.
OK, sure.
It also specifically mentions "a well regulated militia" but most gun rights advocates conveniently forget that part.
Are you sure you know what "well-regulated" means in that context?
I'm not actually sure if anybody knows what "well regulated" means in this context.
I would, for example, interpret this as meaning that the government can (in fact, should) regulate arms, but can't forbid carrying them. But many many people have argued many many other interpretations.
But even there-- how much regulation is "well regulated" without shading into the "abridging" region?
Politically the Viking 1 success was a huge win for the U.S. against the competing Soviet space program.
I always thought it was kind of a "gentleman's agreement", we went to Mars and the Russians went to Venus.
Nope. The Russians sent probes to both planets. it just happened that their Mars probes failed, and their Venus probes (after the first handful) mostly succeeded.
Why bring politics into it. The Russians have physically landed on Venus and no one else has even come close,
Two of the NASA Pioneer atmospheric probes landed on the surface, even though landiing was not a mission objective. One of them continued to transmit after landing, so no, the Russian are not the only ones to successfully land on the surface of Venus.
so can they claim the same "political victory"?
What is the radiation level at 53km over Venus?
Pretty reasonable-- at that level, you're still underneath about 10 tons/m2 of shielding by atmosphere
And fiction aside, why would someone want to colonize a floating death trap? Why not colonize the surface of the ocean for 1 billionth the price and risk?
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
I suppose then that the USSR's Mars 3 explorer in 1971 must be a figment of my imagination.
I would think that it's reasonable to require that the probe transmit at least one image from the surface before saying that it's successful. Landing and immediately failing is not really a success.
I never once attacked science. I'm a fan of science, I love science, the results of science, combined with a little I implement when problem solving, are how I make my living. It's how I've made my living since I've been making a living.
Good. Then we are apparently in agreement.
I've been plotting the Manabe and Weatherald 1967 model-- the one in which the only feedback was an assumption of constant humidity-- and also the predictions of the 1979 National Academy of Sciences report against the actual measurements using the actual carbon dioxide numbers for several years now, and the data is so far matching predictions. Predictions do not require "200% calibration factors". All the model assumes is constant humidity.
It's possible that this assumption needs to be tweaked. But this seems a reasonable first order result, and it seems to be quite good.
The models have been predicting quite well since 1967, which is not quite fifty years. Seems pretty damn good to me.
The denialists have put in a pretty slick "damned if you do, damned if you don't" trap, haven't they? Their criticism of the 1967 and 1979 models was "but what about all of these possible feedback effects, which you assumed were only small corrections to the model? We refuse to believe the models until you incorporate all the feedbacks!" And now that the models do incorporate all the feedbacks (in the process showing that they were, in fact, small corrections), they're saying "Your models have all these feedbacks, we don't believe them!"
So uhmmm, Wikipedia is a denier blog.
Your link to Wikipedia was a link to the "little ice age" article. It's a nice article, but it's not a "question" about climate modelling.
Got it. The New York Times is a denier blog, I thought it was a left wing propaganda machine.
Your link to the New York Times was a link to an article about a guy who falsified research about a HIV vaccine. An interesting article... but your link text was accurate: "Oh look! It's about vaccines, but it has nothing to do with Autism so it doesn't really count. "
Exactly. It's not a denier, it's not an anti-denier... it's just completely irrelevant.
You are linking a bunch of irrelevant shit, and saying "hey, you sort through this shit. Maybe somewhere in there there is something relevant."
No, thanks
As for Watts up with That? I generally referenced it for the collection of references. I don't actually read the site,
That's wise.
I did a search for something mentioning the fact that records were altered. The one incident in particular I recall involved people actually getting information directly from a weather station's archives in Antarctica that disagreed with what NASA/NOAA published as what that very station said.
So, basically, what you are saying is that you vaguely remember something but don't have a link or details, you thought maybe it was on wattsupwiththat but you can't find it, so why don't I do the work and look it up?
I just told you. I'm not interested in digging through shit.
Nothing creates exceptions to the rule like an emergency. If you don't have an emergency sometimes it pays to create one. For those who see through the cloud, call them crazy, it will keep everyone else from paying attention to them. Then you can use the propaganda to control the people. I'm a conservationist, I do believe we're generally screwing up the planet on which we live. I like doing "green" things. I try to minimize packaging, which goes right out the window when I order off the web, but still "family size" is my choice. I prefer as fuel efficient of a vehicle as I can get, for multitudes of reasons and can't wait for a chance at an Elio. I'm a cyclist when I can be. I try to minimize my pollution and foot print for the same reason the hippies say I should. Fortunately I have a wife who's really into natural cleaning products and what have you, we're shifting towards those, we were already doing less harmful stuff, but now she's making all sorts of household products. I admit to having mixed feelings towards some of those. I go non-GMO/organic as much as possible. I think doing these things makes sense. I think green energy, like wind and solar, when done properly, is the right thing to do for the environment and for capitalistic reasons, free fuel.
Good for you, but I don't actually give a damn about any of those things. I do give a damn about people who are attempting to discredit science because it's an easy way to score policy points.
I think most climate alarmism is bullshit and it's being used to implement Agenda 21, which is not completely bad, but at it's core removes freedom when implemented through trickery and manipulation.
Ah, a garden variety conspiracy theory. So, the conspiracy flavor of the day is "Agenda 21." I know a lot of atmospheric scientists. I have never heard one-- not one-- mention "Agenda 21", even as a passing reference. None, ever.
Basically: you're wrong. This is just simply not what scientists do. Pushing some policy agenda is what a public relations push funded primarily by oil companies wants you to believe scientists do... but it's just not how science actually works.
I think there's a lot of great ideas with Agenda 21
I don't.
All competent computer modelers can get the model to tell them anything they want. I'd go so far as to use that as the definition of 'competent modeler'.
You might think so. It's harder than you'd expect. The models have to match day-night temperature variation, variation with altitude, latitude and season, and-- these days-- they have to get not only the average cloud coverage, but the patterns of clouds right. The models have to be pretty darn close to correct to get all that right, and that hasn't even started looking at historical climate.
Here's an interesting thing, though. There are about twenty different groups, on four continents, running different climate models. They vary considerably in their results-- that variation is the uncertainty in the IPCC climate sensitivity. But they all show greenhouse warming.
So, here's my question. The public-relations effort devoted to casting doubt on climate science is funded at roughly $100 million per year. At that funding level, it would be simple enough for them to devote a few million to taking one of the climate models (most of them are open source) and tweaking those variables to produce a result showing no greenhouse warming.
If it's so easy to tweak the input numbers and get-- in your phrase-- "anything they want"... why don't they? Why isn't there a plausible null-hypothesis showing no global warming?
Sorry, but here's an important lesson for you. Memorize this simple rule:
Never get your science information from the opinion/editorial pages of Forbes magazine.
Forbes is a business magazine. It's not a science magazine. It doesn't even pretend to be a science magazine. It's a bad source for science information, because they are editorializing to make a point, not to understand how climate works.
Track down original sources. Don't rely on editorials in Forbes.
Since you get your data from business magazines and blogs, here's a blog post you might look at: http://variable-variability.bl... But, let's look at that Forbes link. The particular editorial you linked has two links... one to a graph with no source listed, and the second to a long paper... with no information on where this paper was published (or if it was) or who it was reviewed by. But-- paydirt!-- that paper does list where the data comes from: the NASA Water Vapor Project. So let's look at the data from the source.
Here's the data: https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/p...
here's the data graphed: https://climatedataguide.ucar....
here's the data analyzed: https://www.cira.colostate.edu...
here's the conclusion of the analysis: "at this point we are unable to prove or disprove a robust global trend in total precipatible water."
So the answer is... inconclusive.
As I said.
Every single one of your points has been answered. In detail.
But since you apparently choose to get your information only from denier blogs, you don't listen.
So, again: why ask questions, if you have no interest in listening to answers?
If you aren't questioning you aren't sciencing - it's called religion.
And when you don't listen when your questions are answered in detail it's not skepticism, it's denial.
And the CO2/H2O vapor feedback coefficient is the single number they use to 'tune' the climate models to get the amount of warming they want.
In the original Manabe and Wetherald model, the "tuning" was simply an input assumption that the relative humidity remains constant.
If you think that this results in too high feedback, you are essentially stating a hypothesis that humidity goes down as temperature rises. Would you like to come up with a physical reason for that assumption?
The models fit the observed data pretty well-- not just in overall temperature, but in parameters like day/night temperature variation (which is a more sensitive probe of the greenhouse effect). If you think that this is just a coincidence, you should also entertain the possibility that the feedback in the models could also be wrong in the opposite direction, too low, which means that the predictions of greenhouse warming are too low.
But somehow the deniers never like to point out the case "if the science is wrong, that means that it's possible that the warming is actually a lot worse than predicted."
I would like to kvetch that by picking a 120 month average for a data set that only spans 420 months
Yeah. There is an 11 year cycle. A 120
[month]
moving average smooths this out so you can see the long term trend.
You could... except that when you take a 120-month average on a data set that only spans 420 months, what you just did is compress the data down to a curve that is effectively only 2 and 2/3 points (keeping in mind that the first 60 months and the last 60 months are now truncated from the graph).
You've removed the noise... but there's not much information left, either.