All you are doing here is burying your head in the sand saying "it might be something else, I don't believe you".
No, I'm saying, "hey, that's a great hypothesis, now let's see some controlled tests to demonstrate that the principle is in fact the primary cause in this case."
OK that's your choice I guess but I for one choose th trust meteorologist over some nutcase on slashdot.
Yes, because unconditionally trusting "authority" is progress. Especially in science. Silly me. Here I was thinking that people should be trusting their own reason over some "authority". That's progress that is.
You honestly think sunspots are the cause of the diurnal anamoly? You really would look at some weird factor like sunspots rather then the obvious lack of contrails?
We have been over this point three times already and you keep attacking this same strawman argument. I shall repeat myself one last time in the hope that you will understand: I am not attributing the temperature variations to anything. I have been asserting that concluding that contrails are the cause of the temperature variations is premature.
Contrails may the simplest explanation, they may even be the most likely explanation, but they are not the only explanation. Since the measurements did not control for the other possibilities, we cannot conclude with confidence that contrails must be cause.
If you honestly think you can make your leap of faith and still be taken seriously, then all the best of luck in your future endeavours. Don't say I didn't warn you.
If cloud cover effects diurnal temprature variations and if contrails are a form of cloud cover then contrails effect diurnal temprature variations. It's a simple sylogism man. Which part of that sylogism are you having problems with?
Please reread my previous post. I agreed that contrails have some effect on diurnal temperatures; no dispute there. However, I disagreed that contrails were necessarily the primary cause of the diurnal temperature variation as you stated in your first post. That is the premature conclusion.
"all we know about the insulating effects of cloud cover is mere hypothesis and should not be treated seriously"
Hypotheses should be treated seriously if they adequately explain the observations in controlled experiments. Contrails may very well ultimately become the accepted explanation, but until they control for all relevant factors we cannot accept it with a sufficient degree of certainty. There are climate theories which posit a strong link to sun spot activity. Did the contrail experiment control for this possibility? I bet they didn't. Until you point me to the study we're merely arguing over your bias and my unwillingness to accept it.
I think this is what seems be tripping you up. You seem to think that having tested hypotheses some insificant thing akin to taking wild guesses and hoping that we are right
No, but tested hypotheses should not just be accepted merely because they justify our assumptions as you are doing.
Obviously this too is tripping you up. It's OK to acknowledge that you don't know everything but if you put off all action till you have 100% knowledge then you might as well never get out of bed.
I'm am suggesting no such thing. Obviously we must move forward with the best of our knowledge, yet as I mention above, I am certain that the contrail experiment was not controlled to the best of our knowledge. Its results are thus suspect.
You want to throw away all that and look for an "alternative" explanation. Why? Why not take the most logical and obvious explanation?
This is a perversion of Occam's razor and is not valid. This simplest or most obvious explanation is not the most likely. As I quoted earlier, "as simple as possible, but no simpler." Contrails are indeed simple, and yet we cannot be sure they are sufficient at this stage.
You are the second stupidest person on slashdot I have argued with to date. Congratulations.
Personal attacks do nothing but make you look silly. You would do well to keep that in mind.
So far all you have done is use weasel words and avoided saying anything at all.
Here we go again. This whole thread started because I simply pointed out that your assertion that contrails caused a given set of measured variations in temperatures. I simply stated that this conclusion was unjustified (as have others). You have repeatedly jumped off-topic, misrepresented my statements, attacked me personally, and yet completely failed to explain how I am mistaken. Let me make it easy for you. Here is your original post:
Right after 9/11 all air traffic was halted int he US for three days. During those days there was a measurable difference in the diurnal temprature variations due to lack of contrails.
There is no question that human activity effects the atmosphere.
If global warming is happening and it's bad then we should change our behavior to minimize or reverse the effect even if we are not the cause of it.
I agree with (and did not dispute) everything except part of your second statement: "During those days there was a measurable difference in the diurnal temperature variations due to lack of contrails." You say I have been using "weasel words" to avoid saying anything, and yet I have been repeatedly stating that concluding the effect was due to contrails is premature. No "weasel words", and you have yet to adequately explain how it is not a premature conclusion. I am still waiting.
So which is it? You have two choices. 1) Human beings have zero effect on global climate. 2) human beings have some effect on global climate. Go ahead, don't be afraid, choose one.
Don't be daft; obviously we have some non-zero effect on the global climate; that conclusion follows from our non-zero effect on local climate. I have even said so in previous posts. Hell, a single frickin cow has a non-zero effect on the global climate. But stating we have a non-zero effect is a far cry from concluding we have a significant or even measurable effect on global climate. Concluding we have a significant effect is premature. You sure love strawman arguments don't you?
Human impact on global climate is still actively debated, and unlike some people, I don't jump to conclusions with insufficient evidence.
False. Or are you saying that we don't know anything about atmosphere and pysics and that everything we think we know is just a simple hypothesis. We don't know anything but we have a lot of guesses, is that what you are saying.
Please go study some philosophy of science. I would recommend Karl Popper; learn the modern scientific method.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
~ Albert Einstein ~
All we have are tested hypotheses. Hypotheses which survive significant testing are regarded as theories. The moment you start to think you "know" something for a fact is the moment you blind yourself to the possibility of alternative, and perhaps more suitable, explanations.
The exact same thing goes for global warming. There is sufficient proof that the earth is getting warmer.
This is debatable (and is being debated), but let's assume it is true for the moment. Note also that I never said "definitive proof", I said "definitive conclusion". As I said, science cannot prove a positive, it can only disprove a negative. We can attain a definitive conclusion (ie. a hypothesis which agrees with all repeatable, controlled experiments), but we can never attain a proof.
There is sufficient proof that human beings effect the global wheater patterns.
Correction: there is sufficient evidence that human beings affect the global weather patterns. Not proof.
I'm sure human activities affect local weather patterns. Your statement that we definitely affect global climate seems quite premature. For the sake of argument, even assuming it is true those two taken together (humans affect global weather patterns and the global temperature is rising) do not imply that humans beings or their activities are causing or even contributing to a global warming trend. It does not follow.
The measurements don't stand alone. They are taken in context with everything else we know about the atmosphere and physics.
Correction: they are taken in context with everything else we hypothesize about the atmosphere and physics.
You want to throw it out altogether because it does not fit your ideology. [...]
You keep saying this, yet you provide no arguments against my sceptical criticisms of your statements.
You want to keep pretending that contrails have no effect on the weather be my guest.
A strawman argument yet again. Nowhere did I say or imply that contrails did not affect the weather. I will repeat myself again: concluding that the results of the study's measurements are due solely to contrails is premature. Please read and reread the preceding again. Nowhere in that statement do I assert that:
1. global warming does not exist 2. contrails do not affect temperature 3. human activities do not affect the climate 4. environmental concerns are unimportant 5. anything else you might be trying to read between the lines
If you're going to argue with me, then stick to arguing against what I'm actually saying. Don't try to figure what I'm trying to say, just read what I'm saying.
If all you're trying to say is that contrails affect diurnal temperatures, then I haven't disagreed with you; I'm sure they have some effect. I do disagree if you try to extend that statement by saying that the study actually measured the extent of that effect.
It's obvious to me by now that you are willfully ignoring data that does not suit your rigid ideology.
The scientific method cannot prove a positive, it can only disprove a negative. It is a sound epistemology. Ignoring data is not sound epistemology. Questioning data taken under uncontrolled circumstances is sound epistemology. It's as simple as that. Scepticism is a pillar of science.
Guess what there is no DEFINITIVE proof that the sun will come up tommorow.
Exactly. There is only a statistical probability by accumulated observation. There is no such evidence for the contrail conclusions. We have measurements of ONE incident on a day that just happened to be free of planes. It was not something planned, it was not something controlled, and it is currently not repeatable. The results are thus suspect, and while intuitively they may provide an interesting clue and suggest certain avenues of inquiry, it is not sound evidence upon which to base a scientific conclusion.
A definitive conclusion is based on sufficient evidence from experiments for which we controlled all known variables. The contrail measurements did not directly control for relevant factors (some of which can't be controlled for due to the scale of the system being investigated), nor indirectly control for by accumulating statistically significant data which would mitigate the variance of many relevant factors (ie. data over a significant period of time without contrails in the same location). I'm having a hard time understanding why you think data from one measurement is sufficient.
If there was a study that said there was no such thing as global warming warming though I bet you would not insist on DEFINITIVE proof.
The burden of proof is on those who insist on the existence of phenomena. Occam's Razor: do not multiply entities unnecessarily. Hence, why I do not believe in God. I certainly concede that global warming could exist, and that the mechanisms proposed are theoretically plausible given our current knowledge, but I am not so naive as to presume that my (or our) ignorance of mitigating factors constitutes any sort of proof.
Oh yes we should definately ignore this piece of evidence alltogether. There is no sense in taking any research which goes against your ideology seriously.
Strawman argument. Please read my statements again. Nowhere did I say to ignore the evidence. The measurements are most likely fine for what they are, but using incomplete, uncontrolled data to reach conclusions is erroneous.
That's just nonsense. Why would you attribute a change in duirnal tempratures to some unknown and unobserved phenomena when there are well established facts regarding heat retention and cloud cover.
I'm not attributing it to anything. I'm saying that your definitively attributing it to contrails is unjustified. It's a premature conclusion.
BTW saying that we don't know everything about wheather (true) and saying that wheather is a chaotic phenomenon (also true) is not the same as saying we don't know anything about the weather or that it's impossible to do any kind of analysis or come to any kind of conclusions.
Which I never said. Given proper controls, we can make definitive statements about observations. Without controls, we cannot make definitive statements. Focus on "definitive" here. Even the oldest, simplest experiments are constantly revised because of previously unknown relevant factors were not controlled.
Saying that the contrail measurements yield a definitive conclusion about a sophisticated sytsem like the weather is premature. One can state there is likely a correlation given our current understanding, but don't go around spouting a causal relationship as fact.
That's not true. There are contrails every day. Measurements are taken every day. There are thousands of points of data during contrail days to establish a baseline.
The weather is chaotic. All relevant factors influencing the weather are not known. Therefore, they cannot assert that they have definitively measured the effects of contrails simply because they don't know that the change was a result of some other unobserved factor (lower sunspot activity for the day for instance). This is a lack of proper controls: when you don't control for all relevant factors, you cannot reliably state that you have determined an actual causal chain. The fact that they measured changes on that specific day simply means there might be some correlation between contrails and the observations. Not necessarily a causal connection though.
We have lots of knowledge abot how actions effect the environment. Yes we don't know everything but we know a lot.
Sure, we know how we affect "the environment" to a certain extent (over fishing == less fish). But this thread is dealing with the weather and climate specifically and the fact is, we do not know how human activities affect these systems.
This is non-sensical. You probably can't predict either whether Linus Torvalds will be hit by a bus next week, but still you can predict quite accurately how many people will get hit by a bus next year.
Not without data, and we have little data for any significant period of time regarding climate conditions.
There is no controlled test (contrail experiment), therefore any such assertions are pure conjecture. I find it hard to believe that any true scientist would seriously consider that as solid evidence.
There certainly is no question that human activity affects the environment; the problem is we don't know how we affect such a complex system.
It is a simple matter really. If everything can be reduced to deterministic physical interactions, than we do not have free will. The proposition upon which the conclusions are based is continually being tested however.
We appear to have free will because we have imperfect knowledge of the circumstances behind any decision (neuron firings, wired pathways etc.). We can make high-level models of statistical behaviour over a limited input-output system (economics), but reducing one's scope to an individual in a particular circumstance makes prediction an intractable problem due to the sheer number of variables. The number of possible permutations of all particles in all positions in the universe is on the order of 10^10^100 (if I recall correctly). While here on earth we would only have a small subset of these permutations, it is still an astronomical figure.
It is simple to predict systems with a small number of variables (macroscopic gravitation), but very difficult with complex ones. Sometimes we can make statistical predictions of complex macroscopic systems (like your example of insulting my ex), but that is usually as good as it gets.
True. But then it cannot be determined that it is false either.
The default position should be that we are deterministic. Assuming we have free will presumes the laws of physics do not apply to us, or that the laws of physics must allow non-causal events (and thus allow non-determinism). Since we have no evidence thus far of non-determinism, we hypothesize tentative conclusion of absolute determinism until further evidence sheds light on the matter.
Your proposal mandates that all that can happen has already happened and we are all following pre-determined unchangable destinies. In other words, the far end of time (is there such a thing?) is already cast, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
To a certain extent. This does not mean we can predict what will happen, but that it is predetermined.
In any case, philosophically speaking we must act as if free will does exist, regardless of whether everything is predetermined. It is almost a moot point.
The above is only one view physicists hold for time travel. The many worlds hypothesis holds different solutions.
Your argument has no effect on the position I suggest since I am argues that time travellers may already be part of history. They have already used those resources, they have already caused those changes. They are not causing anything new; it has already transpired. Going back in time is thus simply fulfilling history.
- Time travellers have come and gone, leaving no evidence. [...] Given past experience with humanity, we are extremely bad at cleaning up after ourselves, and not shy at all about trying new things, so I find the first two options extremely unlikely.
You are neglecting the possibility that the laws of physics might prohibit changes to the past so as to prevent paradoxes. Even if this were not the case, if they had time travel technology and they left something behind by accident, they could just return to a minute before they left and pick it up again. Why would there be a limit to the number of times they could return to undo damage? Or they would leave themselves a note in the past before they went on the mission, "make sure you have this before you leave." (similar to Bill and Ted's, "Don't forget to wind your watch!")
That's the point, a determined attacker, not Joe Pissed-Off who happens to have a.45 in his glove box.
The temptation to anger an opponent with a gun is greatly diminished; tempers are brought under control or those with tempers die out. Either way, the problem is self-correcting. There is no need for an expensive infrastructure which serves only to make people feel safe to lose self-control.
Regarding the.50 cal. I'm not asking for physics to change. Simply responding to the position that I need to take the appropriate steps to protect myself or it's my own fault for getting shot. My question was what steps the previous poster would suggest.
It's not your fault getting shot unless you deliberately stepped in front of a bullet. Blaming victims may be a popular practice nowadays, but it has no justification. If such bullets are flying everywhere as a common occurrence, then I suggest you move. As for the steps to take to protect yourself, for starters, don't piss off someone with such heavy artillery. Courtesy goes a long way.
Regarding the DC sniper victims, please answer the following: If they had concealed carry permits and were all armed with handguns, how would that have prevented any of them from being killed
Obviously it wouldn't have mattered a snit. Fortunately, this is besides the point. As you yourself said, a determined attacker will circumvent any deterence. You have to survive every attack; he need only succeed once.
vs. the killer not being able to easily procure a bushmaster?
I think you'll agree that the snipers were determined attackers; they would have found a way. This example does nothing to bolster your argument.
The only way you could convince me that preventing people from carrying weaponry is beneficial is showing me some controlled studies to that effect. Since none exist, we are arguing over psychology of the mind and social patterns. Given my position that a society should maximise personal responsibility as the only effective means of organization, my stance on weaponry naturally follows.
Humans will adapt to any environment in which they find themselves, and while I don't doubt that the adjustment would be rough at first, I think it would ultimately turn out better. My position is a natural extension of capitalism and the free market which is itself a natural extension of the processes under which nature itself operates. The dangers inherent in shirking personal responsibility for some illusion of safety are significant.
Uhh, hopefully I'm mistaken, but are you actually arguing that you have a right to posses and keep in your home bricks of C4?
Unless one actually uses them to inflict harm, there is no reason why one shouldn't.
I think I am a person who would like to be safe in my home, knowing that if you want to inflict harm upon me, you'll have to come up to me in person and deal with me.
Your desire is immaterial. A determined attacker can obtain any sort of distance weapon regardless of whether it is illegal. You are desiring a level of security where there can be none.
The argument you are espousing is that everybody needs to walk around armed to the teeth.
No, I am suggesting that it should *not be illegal* for someone to be armed to the teeth. Anyone can feel free to walk around unarmed. Attackers would be much less hesitant if they didn't know the limits or capabilities of their potential victims.
BTW, how does one protect against a.50 cal projectile?
You tell me. The laws of physics don't change just because that.50 cal projectile is now illegal.
What should the DC Sniper victims have done differently since they obviously failed in protecting themselves properly from random sniper attacks?
Nothing obviously; that's what makes them victims. If they were somehow responsible for their own deaths, we wouldn't call them victims now would we? Besides, what difference does it make how he killed them? The fact is he did; it doesn't matter what weapon he used. All these laws which draw distinctions between the method of attack are just silly. How is "aggravated assault with a knife" any different than simple "aggravated assault"? What matters is the amount of damage inflicted, not the means of inflicting said damage.
If you want to be really pedantic, you can say the sniper victims shouldn't leave their homes or should always stay behind cover (and only frequent establishments that have sufficient cover). It's up to each person to decide to what extent they wish to protect themselves. Outlawing weapons simply imparts a false sense of security.
Why do you need cyanide? Why do you need a brick of C4? Should you be allowed to possess the chemical formula on how to manufacture cyanide?
The real question I'd like answered, is how can you justify taking these things away from me without cause? Who do you think you are?
The only real solutions to these problems is educating people to defend themselves against these threats, not outlawing them and then pretending they don't exist.
Now, what the heck is wrong with me having the rights to that work, at least for a limited amount of time? Am I not allowed to control my work? Or do you think that, because what I've created isn't "physical", I'm not allowed to "own" it?
We must ask, "what is being patented or copyrighted?". Copyrights cover artistic creations, patents cover knowledge (often technical). These are both necessarily finite in that we must be able to describe them in finite time and in a way that we can understand. Thus, creations, knowledge and the rest are or can be fully described by a sequence of descriptive sentences, symbols and images; in other words, an idea is simply information. According to information theory, any information can be fully described by a sequence of bits (which is essentially a number).
"Intellectual Property" posits that knowledge and ideas are actual property which should remain in the creators' control in perpetuity, or until he voluntarily relinquishes said control. Since we see that any such idea can simply be represented as a sequence of bits, this position essentially reduces to saying that a creator has exclusive ownership rights on that particular bit string/number, and no one may ever use this particular arrangement of bits without permission.
Doesn't that seem a tad dubious? From this information-centric perspective, ideas and knowledge are more akin to discoveries rather than creations. While it certainly takes intelligence, time and hard work to discover something (be it scientific or artistic), I don't think anyone would agree that one should be forbidden from ever using some knowledge that one discovered merely because someone else discovered it first.
Now, exactly what ownership claim can you make over an idea described by a sequence of bits? What if someone creates something identical independent of your influence? The only sensible solution seems to be that ideas cannot be owned, and that all financial returns from a creation should be based on time-to-market, not artifical monopolies. Fortunately, recent studies support the viability of such an "intellectual property"-free world.
Slashdot Mirror
All you are doing here is burying your head in the sand saying "it might be something else, I don't believe you".
No, I'm saying, "hey, that's a great hypothesis, now let's see some controlled tests to demonstrate that the principle is in fact the primary cause in this case."
OK that's your choice I guess but I for one choose th trust meteorologist over some nutcase on slashdot.
Yes, because unconditionally trusting "authority" is progress. Especially in science. Silly me. Here I was thinking that people should be trusting their own reason over some "authority". That's progress that is.
You honestly think sunspots are the cause of the diurnal anamoly? You really would look at some weird factor like sunspots rather then the obvious lack of contrails?
We have been over this point three times already and you keep attacking this same strawman argument. I shall repeat myself one last time in the hope that you will understand: I am not attributing the temperature variations to anything. I have been asserting that concluding that contrails are the cause of the temperature variations is premature.
Contrails may the simplest explanation, they may even be the most likely explanation, but they are not the only explanation. Since the measurements did not control for the other possibilities, we cannot conclude with confidence that contrails must be cause.
If you honestly think you can make your leap of faith and still be taken seriously, then all the best of luck in your future endeavours. Don't say I didn't warn you.
If cloud cover effects diurnal temprature variations and if contrails are a form of cloud cover then contrails effect diurnal temprature variations. It's a simple sylogism man. Which part of that sylogism are you having problems with?
Please reread my previous post. I agreed that contrails have some effect on diurnal temperatures; no dispute there. However, I disagreed that contrails were necessarily the primary cause of the diurnal temperature variation as you stated in your first post. That is the premature conclusion.
"all we know about the insulating effects of cloud cover is mere hypothesis and should not be treated seriously"
Hypotheses should be treated seriously if they adequately explain the observations in controlled experiments. Contrails may very well ultimately become the accepted explanation, but until they control for all relevant factors we cannot accept it with a sufficient degree of certainty. There are climate theories which posit a strong link to sun spot activity. Did the contrail experiment control for this possibility? I bet they didn't. Until you point me to the study we're merely arguing over your bias and my unwillingness to accept it.
I think this is what seems be tripping you up. You seem to think that having tested hypotheses some insificant thing akin to taking wild guesses and hoping that we are right
No, but tested hypotheses should not just be accepted merely because they justify our assumptions as you are doing.
Obviously this too is tripping you up. It's OK to acknowledge that you don't know everything but if you put off all action till you have 100% knowledge then you might as well never get out of bed.
I'm am suggesting no such thing. Obviously we must move forward with the best of our knowledge, yet as I mention above, I am certain that the contrail experiment was not controlled to the best of our knowledge. Its results are thus suspect.
You want to throw away all that and look for an "alternative" explanation. Why? Why not take the most logical and obvious explanation?
This is a perversion of Occam's razor and is not valid. This simplest or most obvious explanation is not the most likely. As I quoted earlier, "as simple as possible, but no simpler." Contrails are indeed simple, and yet we cannot be sure they are sufficient at this stage.
Personal attacks do nothing but make you look silly. You would do well to keep that in mind.
So far all you have done is use weasel words and avoided saying anything at all.
Here we go again. This whole thread started because I simply pointed out that your assertion that contrails caused a given set of measured variations in temperatures. I simply stated that this conclusion was unjustified (as have others). You have repeatedly jumped off-topic, misrepresented my statements, attacked me personally, and yet completely failed to explain how I am mistaken. Let me make it easy for you. Here is your original post:
I agree with (and did not dispute) everything except part of your second statement: "During those days there was a measurable difference in the diurnal temperature variations due to lack of contrails." You say I have been using "weasel words" to avoid saying anything, and yet I have been repeatedly stating that concluding the effect was due to contrails is premature. No "weasel words", and you have yet to adequately explain how it is not a premature conclusion. I am still waiting.
So which is it? You have two choices.
1) Human beings have zero effect on global climate.
2) human beings have some effect on global climate.
Go ahead, don't be afraid, choose one.
Don't be daft; obviously we have some non-zero effect on the global climate; that conclusion follows from our non-zero effect on local climate. I have even said so in previous posts. Hell, a single frickin cow has a non-zero effect on the global climate. But stating we have a non-zero effect is a far cry from concluding we have a significant or even measurable effect on global climate. Concluding we have a significant effect is premature. You sure love strawman arguments don't you?
Human impact on global climate is still actively debated, and unlike some people, I don't jump to conclusions with insufficient evidence.
False. Or are you saying that we don't know anything about atmosphere and pysics and that everything we think we know is just a simple hypothesis. We don't know anything but we have a lot of guesses, is that what you are saying.
Please go study some philosophy of science. I would recommend Karl Popper; learn the modern scientific method.
All we have are tested hypotheses. Hypotheses which survive significant testing are regarded as theories. The moment you start to think you "know" something for a fact is the moment you blind yourself to the possibility of alternative, and perhaps more suitable, explanations.
The exact same thing goes for global warming. There is sufficient proof that the earth is getting warmer.
This is debatable (and is being debated), but let's assume it is true for the moment. Note also that I never said "definitive proof", I said "definitive conclusion". As I said, science cannot prove a positive, it can only disprove a negative. We can attain a definitive conclusion (ie. a hypothesis which agrees with all repeatable, controlled experiments), but we can never attain a proof.
There is sufficient proof that human beings effect the global wheater patterns.
Correction: there is sufficient evidence that human beings affect the global weather patterns. Not proof.
I'm sure human activities affect local weather patterns. Your statement that we definitely affect global climate seems quite premature. For the sake of argument, even assuming it is true those two taken together (humans affect global weather patterns and the global temperature is rising) do not imply that humans beings or their activities are causing or even contributing to a global warming trend. It does not follow.
The measurements don't stand alone. They are taken in context with everything else we know about the atmosphere and physics.
Correction: they are taken in context with everything else we hypothesize about the atmosphere and physics.
You want to throw it out altogether because it does not fit your ideology. [...]
You keep saying this, yet you provide no arguments against my sceptical criticisms of your statements.
You want to keep pretending that contrails have no effect on the weather be my guest.
A strawman argument yet again. Nowhere did I say or imply that contrails did not affect the weather. I will repeat myself again: concluding that the results of the study's measurements are due solely to contrails is premature. Please read and reread the preceding again. Nowhere in that statement do I assert that:
1. global warming does not exist
2. contrails do not affect temperature
3. human activities do not affect the climate
4. environmental concerns are unimportant
5. anything else you might be trying to read between the lines
If you're going to argue with me, then stick to arguing against what I'm actually saying. Don't try to figure what I'm trying to say, just read what I'm saying.
If all you're trying to say is that contrails affect diurnal temperatures, then I haven't disagreed with you; I'm sure they have some effect. I do disagree if you try to extend that statement by saying that the study actually measured the extent of that effect.
It's obvious to me by now that you are willfully ignoring data that does not suit your rigid ideology.
The scientific method cannot prove a positive, it can only disprove a negative. It is a sound epistemology. Ignoring data is not sound epistemology. Questioning data taken under uncontrolled circumstances is sound epistemology. It's as simple as that. Scepticism is a pillar of science.
Guess what there is no DEFINITIVE proof that the sun will come up tommorow.
Exactly. There is only a statistical probability by accumulated observation. There is no such evidence for the contrail conclusions. We have measurements of ONE incident on a day that just happened to be free of planes. It was not something planned, it was not something controlled, and it is currently not repeatable. The results are thus suspect, and while intuitively they may provide an interesting clue and suggest certain avenues of inquiry, it is not sound evidence upon which to base a scientific conclusion.
A definitive conclusion is based on sufficient evidence from experiments for which we controlled all known variables. The contrail measurements did not directly control for relevant factors (some of which can't be controlled for due to the scale of the system being investigated), nor indirectly control for by accumulating statistically significant data which would mitigate the variance of many relevant factors (ie. data over a significant period of time without contrails in the same location). I'm having a hard time understanding why you think data from one measurement is sufficient.
If there was a study that said there was no such thing as global warming warming though I bet you would not insist on DEFINITIVE proof.
The burden of proof is on those who insist on the existence of phenomena. Occam's Razor: do not multiply entities unnecessarily. Hence, why I do not believe in God. I certainly concede that global warming could exist, and that the mechanisms proposed are theoretically plausible given our current knowledge, but I am not so naive as to presume that my (or our) ignorance of mitigating factors constitutes any sort of proof.
Oh yes we should definately ignore this piece of evidence alltogether. There is no sense in taking any research which goes against your ideology seriously.
Strawman argument. Please read my statements again. Nowhere did I say to ignore the evidence. The measurements are most likely fine for what they are, but using incomplete, uncontrolled data to reach conclusions is erroneous.
That's just nonsense. Why would you attribute a change in duirnal tempratures to some unknown and unobserved phenomena when there are well established facts regarding heat retention and cloud cover.
I'm not attributing it to anything. I'm saying that your definitively attributing it to contrails is unjustified. It's a premature conclusion.
BTW saying that we don't know everything about wheather (true) and saying that wheather is a chaotic phenomenon (also true) is not the same as saying we don't know anything about the weather or that it's impossible to do any kind of analysis or come to any kind of conclusions.
Which I never said. Given proper controls, we can make definitive statements about observations. Without controls, we cannot make definitive statements. Focus on "definitive" here. Even the oldest, simplest experiments are constantly revised because of previously unknown relevant factors were not controlled.
Saying that the contrail measurements yield a definitive conclusion about a sophisticated sytsem like the weather is premature. One can state there is likely a correlation given our current understanding, but don't go around spouting a causal relationship as fact.
That's not true. There are contrails every day. Measurements are taken every day. There are thousands of points of data during contrail days to establish a baseline.
The weather is chaotic. All relevant factors influencing the weather are not known. Therefore, they cannot assert that they have definitively measured the effects of contrails simply because they don't know that the change was a result of some other unobserved factor (lower sunspot activity for the day for instance). This is a lack of proper controls: when you don't control for all relevant factors, you cannot reliably state that you have determined an actual causal chain. The fact that they measured changes on that specific day simply means there might be some correlation between contrails and the observations. Not necessarily a causal connection though.
We have lots of knowledge abot how actions effect the environment. Yes we don't know everything but we know a lot.
Sure, we know how we affect "the environment" to a certain extent (over fishing == less fish). But this thread is dealing with the weather and climate specifically and the fact is, we do not know how human activities affect these systems.
This is non-sensical. You probably can't predict either whether Linus Torvalds will be hit by a bus next week, but still you can predict quite accurately how many people will get hit by a bus next year.
Not without data, and we have little data for any significant period of time regarding climate conditions.
There is no controlled test (contrail experiment), therefore any such assertions are pure conjecture. I find it hard to believe that any true scientist would seriously consider that as solid evidence.
There certainly is no question that human activity affects the environment; the problem is we don't know how we affect such a complex system.
Actually, you should check out OpenCM. (soon to make it's 1.0 release).
* Freedom (expression, speech, religion, assembly, association),
* Rule of Law
These are all you really need for free market capitalism. You don't even really need the last in certain scenarios.
I do not see how this applies to living things.
It is a simple matter really. If everything can be reduced to deterministic physical interactions, than we do not have free will. The proposition upon which the conclusions are based is continually being tested however.
We appear to have free will because we have imperfect knowledge of the circumstances behind any decision (neuron firings, wired pathways etc.). We can make high-level models of statistical behaviour over a limited input-output system (economics), but reducing one's scope to an individual in a particular circumstance makes prediction an intractable problem due to the sheer number of variables. The number of possible permutations of all particles in all positions in the universe is on the order of 10^10^100 (if I recall correctly). While here on earth we would only have a small subset of these permutations, it is still an astronomical figure.
It is simple to predict systems with a small number of variables (macroscopic gravitation), but very difficult with complex ones. Sometimes we can make statistical predictions of complex macroscopic systems (like your example of insulting my ex), but that is usually as good as it gets.
True. But then it cannot be determined that it is false either.
The default position should be that we are deterministic. Assuming we have free will presumes the laws of physics do not apply to us, or that the laws of physics must allow non-causal events (and thus allow non-determinism). Since we have no evidence thus far of non-determinism, we hypothesize tentative conclusion of absolute determinism until further evidence sheds light on the matter.
Ahh yes, except that I believe in free will......
Belief does not make it so.
Your proposal mandates that all that can happen has already happened and we are all following pre-determined unchangable destinies. In other words, the far end of time (is there such a thing?) is already cast, and there is nothing that can be done about it.
To a certain extent. This does not mean we can predict what will happen, but that it is predetermined.
In any case, philosophically speaking we must act as if free will does exist, regardless of whether everything is predetermined. It is almost a moot point.
The above is only one view physicists hold for time travel. The many worlds hypothesis holds different solutions.
Your argument has no effect on the position I suggest since I am argues that time travellers may already be part of history. They have already used those resources, they have already caused those changes. They are not causing anything new; it has already transpired. Going back in time is thus simply fulfilling history.
Which would make time travel impossible.
No, it would make altering the timeline impossible.
No, religious zealots don't try to prove anything (through rational means). They appeal to faith and emotions, not scientific principles.
- Time travellers have come and gone, leaving no evidence.
[...]
Given past experience with humanity, we are extremely bad at cleaning up after ourselves, and not shy at all about trying new things, so I find the first two options extremely unlikely.
You are neglecting the possibility that the laws of physics might prohibit changes to the past so as to prevent paradoxes. Even if this were not the case, if they had time travel technology and they left something behind by accident, they could just return to a minute before they left and pick it up again. Why would there be a limit to the number of times they could return to undo damage? Or they would leave themselves a note in the past before they went on the mission, "make sure you have this before you leave." (similar to Bill and Ted's, "Don't forget to wind your watch!")
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
That's the point, a determined attacker, not Joe Pissed-Off who happens to have a .45 in his glove box.
.50 cal. I'm not asking for physics to change. Simply responding to the position that I need to take the appropriate steps to protect myself or it's my own fault for getting shot. My question was what steps the previous poster would suggest.
The temptation to anger an opponent with a gun is greatly diminished; tempers are brought under control or those with tempers die out. Either way, the problem is self-correcting. There is no need for an expensive infrastructure which serves only to make people feel safe to lose self-control.
Regarding the
It's not your fault getting shot unless you deliberately stepped in front of a bullet. Blaming victims may be a popular practice nowadays, but it has no justification. If such bullets are flying everywhere as a common occurrence, then I suggest you move. As for the steps to take to protect yourself, for starters, don't piss off someone with such heavy artillery. Courtesy goes a long way.
Regarding the DC sniper victims, please answer the following: If they had concealed carry permits and were all armed with handguns, how would that have prevented any of them from being killed
Obviously it wouldn't have mattered a snit. Fortunately, this is besides the point. As you yourself said, a determined attacker will circumvent any deterence. You have to survive every attack; he need only succeed once.
vs. the killer not being able to easily procure a bushmaster?
I think you'll agree that the snipers were determined attackers; they would have found a way. This example does nothing to bolster your argument.
The only way you could convince me that preventing people from carrying weaponry is beneficial is showing me some controlled studies to that effect. Since none exist, we are arguing over psychology of the mind and social patterns. Given my position that a society should maximise personal responsibility as the only effective means of organization, my stance on weaponry naturally follows.
Humans will adapt to any environment in which they find themselves, and while I don't doubt that the adjustment would be rough at first, I think it would ultimately turn out better. My position is a natural extension of capitalism and the free market which is itself a natural extension of the processes under which nature itself operates. The dangers inherent in shirking personal responsibility for some illusion of safety are significant.
Uhh, hopefully I'm mistaken, but are you actually arguing that you have a right to posses and keep in your home bricks of C4?
.50 cal projectile?
.50 cal projectile is now illegal.
Unless one actually uses them to inflict harm, there is no reason why one shouldn't.
I think I am a person who would like to be safe in my home, knowing that if you want to inflict harm upon me, you'll have to come up to me in person and deal with me.
Your desire is immaterial. A determined attacker can obtain any sort of distance weapon regardless of whether it is illegal. You are desiring a level of security where there can be none.
The argument you are espousing is that everybody needs to walk around armed to the teeth.
No, I am suggesting that it should *not be illegal* for someone to be armed to the teeth. Anyone can feel free to walk around unarmed. Attackers would be much less hesitant if they didn't know the limits or capabilities of their potential victims.
BTW, how does one protect against a
You tell me. The laws of physics don't change just because that
What should the DC Sniper victims have done differently since they obviously failed in protecting themselves properly from random sniper attacks?
Nothing obviously; that's what makes them victims. If they were somehow responsible for their own deaths, we wouldn't call them victims now would we? Besides, what difference does it make how he killed them? The fact is he did; it doesn't matter what weapon he used. All these laws which draw distinctions between the method of attack are just silly. How is "aggravated assault with a knife" any different than simple "aggravated assault"? What matters is the amount of damage inflicted, not the means of inflicting said damage.
If you want to be really pedantic, you can say the sniper victims shouldn't leave their homes or should always stay behind cover (and only frequent establishments that have sufficient cover). It's up to each person to decide to what extent they wish to protect themselves. Outlawing weapons simply imparts a false sense of security.
Why do you need cyanide? Why do you need a brick of C4? Should you be allowed to possess the chemical formula on how to manufacture cyanide?
The real question I'd like answered, is how can you justify taking these things away from me without cause? Who do you think you are?
The only real solutions to these problems is educating people to defend themselves against these threats, not outlawing them and then pretending they don't exist.
Allow me to direct you to a post I wrote on exactly this topic. I shall copy it here for everyone's benefit:
Now, exactly what ownership claim can you make over an idea described by a sequence of bits? What if someone creates something identical independent of your influence? The only sensible solution seems to be that ideas cannot be owned, and that all financial returns from a creation should be based on time-to-market, not artifical monopolies. Fortunately, recent studies support the viability of such an "intellectual property"-free world.
"It's not just a crazy idea that some lefty Commie hippie dreamed up in a drug-induced stupor."
;-)
He's right, it's a good idea that some lefty Commie hippie dreamed up in a drug-induced stupor.
CDs DO sell for half price -- $8 or less -- at used CD shops, and online at amazon and half.com
People still look for them on Kazaa or Newsgroups or Bit Torrent
Reasons:
1. Used, not new
2. Inconvenient (go all the way over there? just to *try* a new song or buy a single or an album?)
3. Pitfalls of physical media (hassle, degradation over time and use, etc.)
4. Filler songs you don't want on these cheap CDs
5. These cheap solutions you mention are not everywhere, nor does everyone even know about their cheap music offerings.