Moron. no one is saying there is no warming. But the fact that there's global warming on Mars does kind of argue that it's not exclusively anthropogenic.
In fact, the intruding salty water has already had its effects on the region's flora and fauna: Lohachara and Bedford islands, with an area of more than six square kilometres between them, "vanished from the map" two decades ago. (See here.)
Actually, the phrase "rife with claims and counter-claims" is making more of the counter-claims then they are; the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of.
Of course, what do you mean by "counter claimant"? Lomborg neither disputes climate change nor that it has an anthropogenic component; he just questions whether the sort of measures suggested by the Kyoto Protocols are cost effective, or whether people's lives wouldn't be more improved by spending the money on other things. McIntyre and McKittrick don't question that there has been warming, just the statistical methods used to conclude it's anthropogenic. Pielke, Sr., questions whether CO2 is the particular mechanism of global warming at all.
That you're not aware of any of these people, except for an incorrect understanding of Lomborg, rather makes the point.
When you buy $70 worth of 210Po, you get one one-trillionth of a gramme more or less. About 1/5250th of a fatal dose, and more like 1/20,000th or less of what was used in London.
So to buy a fatal dose it's only going to cost about a third of a million dollars.
Feh. First off, were you under the impression that the First Amendment only applies to officially-approved reporters? Or that newspapers have some collection of special powers not among those reserved to the regular population?
But more to the point, it's not "vigilanism" for "amateur police" to report a crime.
Assuming you're old enough to vote, kindly don't until you get a clue.
As I said over at my blog the underlying assumption all through this is that we humans aren't "nature". We're some kind of unnatural soemthing, I don't know what, and what humans do to survive is somehow not "right", unlike, I dunno, a wolf eating a bunny. (Of course, a lot of the same people are the ones who try to put their dogs and cats on vegetarian diets.)
My family used to have a propane gas company (no, I'm not Bobby Hill) in our tiny little Colorado town.
He was good friends with the guy who ran the local newspaper. They used to fill the paper with mentions of Ethyl Mercaptan --- the Society pages, the Women's section. She even crept into local news stories, once or twice being quoted.
Don't know where you'd buy one, but they certainly can be (and have been) made. My family sold propane and propane equiment when I was a kid (yes, they had fire then) and we had, as an advertising gimmick, a gas TV to go with our gas refrigerators and gas dryers. Propane fuel cell gave us 12 v DC for a small black and white TV.
(Yes, we had fire, but it was black-and-white fire --- I don't remember color TV until I was rather older.)
Nope, sorry: if a novel makes a factual statement and footnotes it, that increases the factual statement's credibility. Nice try though (actually an ad hominem circumstantial again, claiming that a statement's veracity was changed because it was in a novel, even with a footnote.)
Your argument about the ad hominem directed at Crichton would make sense if he was asserting something on his own authority --- but he's not. Ergo the footnotes.
Consider (this is called the "principle of substitution") a similar case. I know next to nothing about Farsi, the Persian language, and couldn't read Rumi's poetry in the original to save my life. If I were to quote " Have you been making yourself shallow/with making other eminent?" on my own authority, you'd have no reason to think it was a fair quotation. On the other hand, when I add (as translated by Coleman Barks) you can easily check and see that Barks is a well-known translator of Persian poetry, and in fact follow my link back and confirm it's correctly quoted.
Now, even though I'm not an authority on Persian poetry, by linking (essentialy footnoting), what I said gains authority.
Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular.
Um, Jared Diamond's Collapse. That would be the one that's based on the ecological collapse of Rapa Nui from deforestation, the one that didn't actually happen that way? (Introduced rats, introduced measles, and Europeans with guns are what really did it for the Easter Islanders.) The book that was so far wrong that it sparked a special journal issue noting its errors?
Would that be the Jared Diamond Collapse you're referring to?
(You might look back at what I actually wrote, which was something to the effect of "trying to sell as prime real estate." No one who has every talked to a real estate agent about a house thinks "trying to sell as prime real estate" is a real strong recommendation for its general habitability. In any case, though, the point is that there was a Little Climactic Optimum, as well as a Little Ice Age: demonstrating that we're at the top of a thousand-year cycle, about a thousand years after the last top, is a whole helluva lot less impressive than saying "it's the warmest it's been in 400 years.")
No, actually it does become more authoritative by adding footnotes. Those are called "references to the literature" and in fact are the primary method by which something becomes more authoritative.
"Suspense writer with an out of date medical degree", on the other hand, is called an "ad hominem circumstantial" and is an example of a primary mechanism (called a "classical fallacy") by which one's writings lose authority.
Well, except it doesn't necessarily show a steady rise --- unless you pick your epoch. it's risen pretty steadily in the last 100 years... except it hasn't actually risen much, if at all, in the last ten years... and it's clearly risen a lot since about 1600... which was the bottom point of the Little Ice Age.
But then, the reason it was called the Little Ice Age is that it was the coldest period since the Little Climactic Optimum, which reached its peak in about 1100 (when Vikings were growing grapes in Newfoundland and selling prime real estate in the green fields of Greenland.)
So the idea that there's been a steady rise in temperatures is true if you include 1900-1990, not true if you add in 1990-today, and not true if you go back more than about 400 years.
What's more, all the estimates of global climate before 1600-something are done with various proxies for temperature, like tree rings. Why? because no one had invented the thermometer yet. The interpretation of those proxies is statistically difficult; depending on some basic assumptions that can't easily be verified, we've either never goten quite as warm as the Little Climactic Optimum, gotten about 2 degrees warmer, or are at about the same point.
The bottom line is that global warming is pretty uncontroversial --- but anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is considerably more controversial.
As someone said about this topic "don't tell me about the consensus: science doesn't work by consensus. What's the truth?"
If you want to read more about the actual controversy, read realclimate.org, climateaudit.org, and climatescience.org.
Slashdot Mirror
Google gomer+"medical school".
Moron. no one is saying there is no warming. But the fact that there's global warming on Mars does kind of argue that it's not exclusively anthropogenic.
... the white dolphin has been known for 20 million years?
... in other news, Al Gore's head explodes, realclimate.org accuses UN of being funded by Exxon through the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
What was it Dean Wormser said?
Try Climate Audit, Climate Science, and Prometheus.
Of course, what do you mean by "counter claimant"? Lomborg neither disputes climate change nor that it has an anthropogenic component; he just questions whether the sort of measures suggested by the Kyoto Protocols are cost effective, or whether people's lives wouldn't be more improved by spending the money on other things. McIntyre and McKittrick don't question that there has been warming, just the statistical methods used to conclude it's anthropogenic. Pielke, Sr., questions whether CO2 is the particular mechanism of global warming at all.
That you're not aware of any of these people, except for an incorrect understanding of Lomborg, rather makes the point.
Oh, goddamnit, folks, keep up on these things.
When you buy $70 worth of 210Po, you get one one-trillionth of a gramme more or less. About 1/5250th of a fatal dose, and more like 1/20,000th or less of what was used in London.
So to buy a fatal dose it's only going to cost about a third of a million dollars.
You can buy lens brushes with 210Po sources, too.
Jesus.
Nikola Tesla, thou art avenged!
The best part about this is the "lah lah lah I don't hear you" responses.
Feh. First off, were you under the impression that the First Amendment only applies to officially-approved reporters? Or that newspapers have some collection of special powers not among those reserved to the regular population?
But more to the point, it's not "vigilanism" for "amateur police" to report a crime.
Assuming you're old enough to vote, kindly don't until you get a clue.
Iraq HAD a WMD program. According to the NY Times, they were a year from getting a workable bomb.
I guess Bush *didn't* lie, eh?
sun rises in east.
As I said over at my blog the underlying assumption all through this is that we humans aren't "nature". We're some kind of unnatural soemthing, I don't know what, and what humans do to survive is somehow not "right", unlike, I dunno, a wolf eating a bunny. (Of course, a lot of the same people are the ones who try to put their dogs and cats on vegetarian diets.)
It is, how you say, looneytoons.
My family used to have a propane gas company (no, I'm not Bobby Hill) in our tiny little Colorado town.
He was good friends with the guy who ran the local newspaper. They used to fill the paper with mentions of Ethyl Mercaptan --- the Society pages, the Women's section. She even crept into local news stories, once or twice being quoted.
Actually, it's ethyl mercaptan anyway.
Uh, guys, "natural gas" is methane. Not hydrogen sulfide.
God that's depressing.
But recognizable.
Don't know where you'd buy one, but they certainly can be (and have been) made. My family sold propane and propane equiment when I was a kid (yes, they had fire then) and we had, as an advertising gimmick, a gas TV to go with our gas refrigerators and gas dryers. Propane fuel cell gave us 12 v DC for a small black and white TV.
(Yes, we had fire, but it was black-and-white fire --- I don't remember color TV until I was rather older.)
Nope, sorry: if a novel makes a factual statement and footnotes it, that increases the factual statement's credibility. Nice try though (actually an ad hominem circumstantial again, claiming that a statement's veracity was changed because it was in a novel, even with a footnote.)
Your argument about the ad hominem directed at Crichton would make sense if he was asserting something on his own authority --- but he's not. Ergo the footnotes.
Consider (this is called the "principle of substitution") a similar case. I know next to nothing about Farsi, the Persian language, and couldn't read Rumi's poetry in the original to save my life. If I were to quote " Have you been making yourself shallow/with making other eminent?" on my own authority, you'd have no reason to think it was a fair quotation. On the other hand, when I add (as translated by Coleman Barks) you can easily check and see that Barks is a well-known translator of Persian poetry, and in fact follow my link back and confirm it's correctly quoted.
Now, even though I'm not an authority on Persian poetry, by linking (essentialy footnoting), what I said gains authority.
Really, I should charge for these lessons.
Because of larger uncertainties in temperature reconstructions for decades and individual years, and because not all proxies record temperatures for such short timescales, even less confidence can be placed in the Mann team's conclusions about the 1990s, and 1998 in particular .
That would be the National Academies of Science report.
Facts can be so inconvenient.
Um, Jared Diamond's Collapse. That would be the one that's based on the ecological collapse of Rapa Nui from deforestation, the one that didn't actually happen that way? (Introduced rats, introduced measles, and Europeans with guns are what really did it for the Easter Islanders.) The book that was so far wrong that it sparked a special journal issue noting its errors?
Would that be the Jared Diamond Collapse you're referring to?
(You might look back at what I actually wrote, which was something to the effect of "trying to sell as prime real estate." No one who has every talked to a real estate agent about a house thinks "trying to sell as prime real estate" is a real strong recommendation for its general habitability. In any case, though, the point is that there was a Little Climactic Optimum, as well as a Little Ice Age: demonstrating that we're at the top of a thousand-year cycle, about a thousand years after the last top, is a whole helluva lot less impressive than saying "it's the warmest it's been in 400 years.")
No, actually it does become more authoritative by adding footnotes. Those are called "references to the literature" and in fact are the primary method by which something becomes more authoritative.
"Suspense writer with an out of date medical degree", on the other hand, is called an "ad hominem circumstantial" and is an example of a primary mechanism (called a "classical fallacy") by which one's writings lose authority.
That should read "response by a professional climatologist who has a vested interest in Crichton being wrong."
As I said above, read realclimate. But read climate audit and climatescience too.
Oh, fine. "What is Truth?" I refuse to have this argument unless someone is providing pizza and beer.
Well, except it doesn't necessarily show a steady rise --- unless you pick your epoch. it's risen pretty steadily in the last 100 years ... except it hasn't actually risen much, if at all, in the last ten years ... and it's clearly risen a lot since about 1600 ... which was the bottom point of the Little Ice Age.
But then, the reason it was called the Little Ice Age is that it was the coldest period since the Little Climactic Optimum, which reached its peak in about 1100 (when Vikings were growing grapes in Newfoundland and selling prime real estate in the green fields of Greenland.)
So the idea that there's been a steady rise in temperatures is true if you include 1900-1990, not true if you add in 1990-today, and not true if you go back more than about 400 years.
What's more, all the estimates of global climate before 1600-something are done with various proxies for temperature, like tree rings. Why? because no one had invented the thermometer yet. The interpretation of those proxies is statistically difficult; depending on some basic assumptions that can't easily be verified, we've either never goten quite as warm as the Little Climactic Optimum, gotten about 2 degrees warmer, or are at about the same point.
The bottom line is that global warming is pretty uncontroversial --- but anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming is considerably more controversial.
As someone said about this topic "don't tell me about the consensus: science doesn't work by consensus. What's the truth?"
If you want to read more about the actual controversy, read realclimate.org, climateaudit.org, and climatescience.org.