PDA

View Full Version : An Inconvenient Truth or an Uncomfortable one?



Olorin
9th October 07, 04:38 AM
http://www.bullshido.net/gallery/data/500/gore.jpg After reading the recent thread by Cullion (http://www.sociocide.com/forums/showthread.php?t=48363&highlight=Al+Gore) on Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth I remembered an article I read a year or so back about Al Gore’s Versailles like 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and his second house a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington Virginia, and finally his third home in Carthage, Tennessee.

This is one of the things that bugs me about the celebrity advocates of environmentalism, they live lives of luxury, and rampant consumer consumption, while telling the rest of us to conserve.

Lets take Leo Dicaprio. What is his carbon footprint? Well he makes movies. He produces a product, which while culturally enriching, consumes resources. Every movie he makes gobbles up more fossil fuels than I will use in my lifetime. Not just in the production of the movie, but also the millions of little plastic DVD that follow every movie he makes. Not to mention the millions of people who get in their cars to go see his movies. If I drove a Hummer, every day, every hour, year round, for the rest of my life, I could never achieve the carbon footprint Leo does in a single year.

In fact let’s look at his house…

Follow da link of hypocrisy. (http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=34.087769~-118.439579&style=h&lvl=19&scene=3573035&sp=aN.ppn3hr542gpd_Torreyson%2520Pl%252c%2520Los%2 520Angeles%252c%2520CA%252090046%252c%2520United%2 520States___~aN.ppdhzh53xcp8_Bel%2520Air%2520%2528 neighborhood)

Look at that fucking place! I mean really. He is not married, has no kids, what’s up with all the space. No amount of “carbon credits” or green energy could offset heating, cooling, and lighting a mansion like this. If he really cared about the environment or global warming he should take the lead and demolish this home and turn the land back to the environment. He can move in next to me in a little environmentally friendly apartment with one bedroom, one bath, and one kitchen. It’s all the space a single man really needs. In fact I will pay his rent for a whole year…so how about it Leo?

As for Al Gore, USA Today reported… (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm)

If they choose to talk the talk they need to walk the walk. But how could one survive without 20 rooms, eight bathrooms, and a staff of servants? No, that truth would be too inconvenient…or to uncomfortable.

.

Cullion
9th October 07, 05:00 AM
What's worse, is that the proposed carbon taxes are regressive taxes which will take a higher proportion of your income the poorer you are.

Olorin
9th October 07, 05:25 AM
Oh and Madonna and others are guilty of the same thing...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=447677&in_page_id=1773

jubei33
9th October 07, 07:16 AM
Agreed, I've never voiced this aloud, especially since we've got commercials over here with Leo driving a hybrid, telling us all how wonderful a clean, healthy earth would be. This rubs me raw like sand paper. Think of the white doves, for Christ's sake!

I will give plus rep (not that it'll make a big deal) to the first person who finds out what kind of cars Leo (does or doesn't) drive. As cool as that would be, I guarantee its not a 30000$ Toyota hybrid.

ditto for the material girl. I want to see her cart her kid to day care in the new Honda hybrid they just released.

Bukow
9th October 07, 08:49 AM
And for the sake of the earth, these hypocrites should stop having kids. Al Gore has 4 kids. Each one of his kids will, chances are, have at least one more; already he has two grandchildren. Think of the increasing waste and fuel consumption that follows his spawn through future generations! Every time one of his kids drive, or his grandkids litter, or take a jet, or... or...

I don't have kids, so can I please use all the "energy credits" that my descendants would have used up, in my lifetime? And if so, will these self-indulgent assholes like Al Gore please stop cluttering my tv screen and bookstore space with their preaching?

kismasher
9th October 07, 09:13 AM
Agreed, I've never voiced this aloud, especially since we've got commercials over here with Leo driving a hybrid, telling us all how wonderful a clean, healthy earth would be. This rubs me raw like sand paper. Think of the white doves, for Christ's sake!

I will give plus rep (not that it'll make a big deal) to the first person who finds out what kind of cars Leo (does or doesn't) drive. As cool as that would be, I guarantee its not a 30000$ Toyota hybrid.

ditto for the material girl. I want to see her cart her kid to day care in the new Honda hybrid they just released.

interesting enough, if you do some research on the company that makes the batteries that power the Prius you'll find some surprising information about the environmental impact of these cars.

jubei33
9th October 07, 09:36 AM
no doubt, the debt alone from the plastics involved in manufacture is something to bitch about, but thats more about cars in general.

Not just to bitch, but heres a question. How to fix the situation or make it better when almost every facet of industry is reliant in fossil fuels in one way or another? Oil as fuel is an issue on most people's minds when this comes up, but it goes beyond simply switching to E85 or bio-alternatives. Plastics and petro-chemicals are big parts of the oil industry and pretty much involved in most points of manufacture.

jvjim
9th October 07, 10:29 AM
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/priusdiaz.html
http://blogs.automotive.com/1003913/miscellaneous/leonardo-dicaprio-drives-green-but-flies-black/index.html
He flies commercial? What a toolbox, everybody here knows that if they could they'd fly on a private jet, emissions be damned.

NoMan
9th October 07, 03:22 PM
You have two seperate arguments. One is that Al Gore is a hypocrit for having a nicer home than you do. The second argument is that Global Warming is that you hate celebrities who preach about conservation because of Al Gore's house. In two parts:

Argument One ignores that Gore tried to get his house eco-friendly, but zoning laws prevented him from doing so. To compensate, he bought energy from solar, wind, and methane gas until he was allowed to install them. Once he received permission, (the deal was that neighbors would not be allowed to see them), he installed the solar roof panel and is currently working on a bunch of renovations.

http://www.enn.com/energy/article/6396

The charges are false, and given that they came from Republican business groups, it should be a no-duh that they weren't accurate.

The argument with Leonardo is more to the point, which is why I posted that the U.S. was most wasteful per dollar of GDP. All GDP activity does indeed generate waste, and no one that I know of is arguing that we stop all economic activity. They are arguing that the U.S. is a conspicuously wasteful country that is committing actions that will mostly harm African and coastal areas. Hence why we're not that worried about it, but Japan is.

The smart money here is the same deal the U.S. used a few years ago. Companies bitched that cutting their emissions would cost them millions of millions of dollars, people would be laid off, the sky would fall, the earth would crumble, hell would overrun the earth with demons, etc., etc. So the govt. said, "Ok, here's what we'll do. You can buy pollution tickets, so that you simply buy whatever you need in terms of pollution, which according to you will be millions of dollars less than changing the industry." Not one of the companies bought any of the pollution tickets, they all found out the few thousand dollars for the tickets was more than what it would actually cost them to cut emissions by themselves. (You can read this in the book, "The Naked Economist"). When an economic incentive is given for an action, problems mysteriously disappear.

As yet another economic argument, one of the reasons that Japan kills American automobile manufacturers is they make more efficient cars than we do. By passing legislation on emission and gas mileage standards, the U.S. car companies would have benefitted their industry, instead, they have to get bailed out by government subsidies for their failing businesses. That costs us in both emissions and wasted tax dollars for inefficient companies.

And then from economists, which ostensibly is what we're arguing about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax


In an October, 2006, report entitled the Stern Review by the former Chief Economist and Senior Vice-President of the World Bank, Nicholas Stern, he states that climate change could affect growth which could be cut by one-fifth unless drastic action is taken.[3] Stern has warned that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.[4] Stern’s report[5] suggests that climate change threatens to be the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. The report has had significant political effects: Australia reported two days after the report was released that they would allot AU$60 million to projects to help cut greenhouse gas emissions.[6] The Stern Review has been criticized by economists, saying that Stern did not consider costs past 2200, that he used an incorrect discount rate in his calculations, and that stopping or significantly slowing climate change will require deep emission cuts everywhere.[7][8]

According to a 2005 report from the Association of British Insurers, limiting carbon emissions could avoid 80% of the projected additional annual cost of tropical cyclones by the 2080s.[9] A June 2004 report by the Association of British Insurers declared "Climate change is not a remote issue for future generations to deal with. It is, in various forms, here already, impacting on insurers' businesses now."[10] It noted that weather risks for households and property were already increasing by 2–4% per year due to changing weather, and that claims for storm and flood damages in the UK had doubled to over £6 billion over the period 1998–2003, compared to the previous five years. The results are rising insurance premiums, and the risk that in some areas flood insurance will become unaffordable for some.

In the U.S., according to Choi and Fisher (2003) each 1% increase in annual precipitation could enlarge catastrophe loss by as much as 2.8%.[11] Financial institutions, including the world's two largest insurance companies, Munich Re and Swiss Re, warned in a 2002 study that "the increasing frequency of severe climatic events, coupled with social trends" could cost almost US$150 billion each year in the next decade.[12] These costs would, through increased costs related to insurance and disaster relief, burden customers, taxpayers, and industry alike.

Polluting is bad, and not doing anything to stop it will harm you whether you want to admit it or not. Smug celebrities won't help, but smarter policies on the domestic front will.

Cullion
9th October 07, 03:39 PM
Stern is pulling those figures completely out of his ass.

Cullion
9th October 07, 03:43 PM
And the scientific case for showing that current temperature trends are man made has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

NoMan
9th October 07, 03:58 PM
And the scientific case for showing that current temperature trends are man made has more holes in it than swiss cheese.

That I know of, there are 30 international scientific societies that have stated global warming is anthropogenic and disasterous. A few thousand others in climatology, biology, geology, and other disciplines have stated that it's happening and it's anthropogenic. In contrast, there's a few dozen who say that it's not happening as fast predicted, and an even smaller amount who say it's not happening at all. Almost none of them are working in interdisciplinary fields or with international organizations, and many were funded by libertarian groups, (the Cato Institute in the U.S.), or directly by fossil fuel companies.

For the most part, the debate is on how much it will affect us, how much can be done about it, and what the best solution for the problem is, but they don't debate that it's happening.

Stern's figures might be off, (pulled them out of the ass implies he made them up), but economists aren't debating that there will be a cost on future societies, even though the costs have varied wildly depending upon what range of variables were set. From the IPCC report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf


Peer-reviewed
estimates of the SCC for 2005 have an average value of US$43
per tonne of carbon (i.e., US$12 per tonne of carbon dioxide), but
the range around this mean is large. For example, in a survey of
100 estimates, the values ran from US$-10 per tonne of carbon
(US$-3 per tonne of carbon dioxide) up to US$350 per tonne of
carbon (US$95 per tonne of carbon dioxide) [20.6].

The large ranges of SCC are due in the large part to differences
in assumptions regarding climate sensitivity, response lags, the
treatment of risk and equity, economic and non-economic
impacts, the inclusion of potentially catastrophic losses, and
discount rates. It is very likely that globally aggregated figures
underestimate the damage costs because they cannot include
many non-quantifiable impacts. Taken as a whole, the range of
published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate
change are likely to be significant and to increase over time
[T20.3, 20.6, F20.4].
It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask
significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions,
countries and populations. In some locations and among some
groups of people with high exposure, high sensitivity and/or low
adaptive capacity, net costs will be significantly larger than the
global aggregate [20.6, 20.ES, 7.4].

Cullion
9th October 07, 04:13 PM
That I know of, there are 30 international scientific societies that have stated global warming is anthropogenic and disasterous. A few thousand others in climatology, biology, geology, and other disciplines have stated that it's happening and it's anthropogenic.

In contrast, there's a few dozen who say that it's not happening as fast predicted, and an even smaller amount who say it's not happening at all.

No accurate predictions about the rate of warming based on the anthropogenic hypothesis have ever been made. Nobody disputes an upward temperature trend (we emerged from a miniture ice-age in the 18th century), many scientists dispute an anthropogenic cause.



Almost none of them are working in interdisciplinary fields or with international organizations, and many were funded by libertarian groups, (the Cato Institute in the U.S.), or directly by fossil fuel companies.

Attacking the source doesn't undermine the argument here any more than me pointing out the other side are funded by people who want an excuse to impose carbon taxes. We did this in another thread.



For the most part, the debate is on how much it will affect us, how much can be done about it, and what the best solution for the problem is, but they don't debate that it's happening.

Yes, there is still much debate about whether the current trend is anthropogenic.



Stern's figures might be off, (pulled them out of the ass implies he made them up), but economists aren't debating that there will be a cost on future societies, even though the costs have varied wildly depending upon what range of variables were set.

Yes, they are made up. He doesn't have a prediction of what will happen which comes from any model of anthropogenic warming and it's environmental effects which has succesfully predicted the 5 years of weather after it was created. How could he possibly be estimating costs without a prediction of what the damage will be (and which areas may economically benefit).

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 05:11 PM
Gore buys his electrons from an alternate energy source company, paying more per electron than he would if he had used a mainstream company.

Having a big house = lots of consumption? Maybe for you greedy bastards. My momma taught me to turn off the fucking light when I leave the room.

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 05:13 PM
This whole debate is fucking ridiculous, by the way.

If it turns out global warming isn't caused by humans, all you assholes will rejoice. But the more data supporting it we get, you jackasses still keep screaming "NEED MOAR PROOF LOLOLOLOL!!!"

Guess who else does that? That's right, Creationists.

Get fucked.

Cullion
9th October 07, 05:14 PM
Gore buys his electrons from an alternate energy source company, paying more per electron than he would if he had used a mainstream company.

Having a big house = lots of consumption? Maybe for you greedy bastards. My momma taught me to turn off the fucking light when I leave the room.

He has three houses. And I bet he has the heating on in some of them during winter when there's nobody there.

Cullion
9th October 07, 05:16 PM
This whole debate is fucking ridiculous, by the way.

If it turns out global warming isn't caused by humans, all you assholes will rejoice. But the more data supporting it we get, you jackasses still keep screaming "NEED MOAR PROOF LOLOLOLOL!!!"

Get fucked.

But you get less data supporting you as time goes on. Just more nutty models which don't make any verifiable predictions. And you'll keep shouting 'NEED TO CONTROL EV1L CORPORATIONS'.

Just like the brainwashed MTV socialists that you are.

Get fucked.

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 05:32 PM
He has three houses. And I bet he has the heating on in some of them during winter when there's nobody there.

Ok, I concede. Clearly someone who is telepathic and can see into other people's houses must be right about Global Warming.

Just by the by, did God tell you about him heating his houses?

Cullion
9th October 07, 05:39 PM
Ok, I concede. Clearly someone who is telepathic and can see into other people's houses must be right about Global Warming.

You can't leave the heating off all through the winter.


Just by the by, did God tell you about him heating his houses?

THX got the message, it's time you did too.

http://www.carthage.edu/dept/english/dante/frames/MapsofHell/BartolomeoMap.jpeg

Cullion
9th October 07, 05:40 PM
If he really cared about the future and employment and ordinary people, he'd sell two of those houses and stay in a hotel when he wants to visit those places.

And he'd travel by Zeppelin.

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 05:43 PM
The movie didn't make itself. He had to pay someone.

Moreoever, he isn't capable of catching Manbearpig by himself, either.

Shawarma
9th October 07, 05:47 PM
This argument is shit. Just because Gore is an extravagant cock doesn't in any way alter his message or whether his arguments are valid or not.

Attack them, and stop using LOL SOCIALIST SIENTIST idiotic arguments too.

Cullion
9th October 07, 05:52 PM
His arguments have been attacked. In other threads. This thread is about Gore being a hypocrit.

Shawarma
9th October 07, 05:53 PM
Oh noes, a hypocritical politician. Stop the press.

This is not relevant. Focus on his argument.

Shawarma
9th October 07, 05:54 PM
To clarify: Gore is 99% certain to actually believe in his own message. He just isn't prepared to give up his luxurious lifestyle to make the world a better place. Like most people.

Cullion
9th October 07, 05:56 PM
I just don't trust creepy-stay-pufft here with my children's future

http://www.extrememortman.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/Al%20Gore%20fat%20from%20Washington%20Post%20and%2 0AP.jpg

Cullion
9th October 07, 05:57 PM
Oh noes, a hypocritical politician. Stop the press.

This is not relevant. Focus on his argument.

For the second time: WE HAVE DONE THIS IN AT LEAST 2 OTHER THREADS.

This thread is about making fun of Al Gore.

DAYoung
9th October 07, 06:04 PM
Cross the streams.

Shawarma
9th October 07, 06:05 PM
Ah, ok then.

Gore is an egomaniacal douchebag who, after having failed at defeating Mickey Mouse in an election, opted to become reknowned as a champion of the (entirely valid) ecological problems concerning our planet. He did this to stroke his ego first, to raise awareness of global warming second, as can be clearly seen in his about 2000 irritating and irrelevant references to his own life in An Unconvenient Truth.

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 06:37 PM
But you get less data supporting you as time goes on. Just more nutty models which don't make any verifiable predictions. And you'll keep shouting 'NEED TO CONTROL EV1L CORPORATIONS'.

Just like the brainwashed MTV socialists that you are.

Get fucked.

The analogue for Creationists is that every time we find a "missling link", we get two more missing links inbetween that one.

You Darwinists just want to destroy Christianity becuase you hate God and are afraid of going to Hell.

Brainwashed by the so-called "scientists".

Cullion
9th October 07, 07:48 PM
The analogue for Creationists is that every time we find a "missling link", we get two more missing links inbetween that one.

You Darwinists just want to destroy Christianity becuase you hate God and are afraid of going to Hell.

Brainwashed by the so-called "scientists".

So-called is right. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for those verifiable predictions.

WarPhalange
9th October 07, 08:01 PM
You're just going to go ahead and assume they are false?

Seriously, what a moronic stance.

Cullion
9th October 07, 08:25 PM
Yes, on the basis that they've been testing them for over a decade and none have passed the 'well let's see if they fit the next five years of observation test'

This is a religion for you and a game for me

It's ok, I know you can't explain why you've dropped your scientific standards.

You just know

You gonna get raped. That's all I have to say.

Olorin
9th October 07, 08:51 PM
To clarify: Gore is 99% certain to actually believe in his own message. He just isn't prepared to give up his luxurious lifestyle to make the world a better place. Like most people.

You has condensed my thread!

Sun Wukong
9th October 07, 08:54 PM
Cross the streams.

NO, I'm sick and tired of getting pee all over my pants. It doesn't matter how broad the angle is, no matter what it still splashes everywhere.

DAYoung
10th October 07, 02:31 AM
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

nihilist
10th October 07, 02:52 PM
Global warming is the direct result of the fires of HELL being heated up to toast the posteriors of Hellywood hypocrites.

Cullion
10th October 07, 03:21 PM
I knew you'd come to appreciate me THX, just knew it.

Zendetta
10th October 07, 03:56 PM
Politicians and preachy celebrities are indeed full of hot air. Not a shocker.

But this thread is, in essence, a long running ad hominem "arguement" in the bigger discussion of climate change.

nihilist
10th October 07, 03:58 PM
If we stop global warming, maybe we will start another ice age.

Zendetta
10th October 07, 04:41 PM
Sweet. I could snowboard to work.

Cullion
10th October 07, 04:46 PM
It's about 20 years before 'environmentalists' will start campaigning against 'global cooling' again.

Olorin
11th October 07, 12:38 AM
It's about 20 years before 'environmentalists' will start campaigning against 'global cooling' again.

Their next thing will be fresh water. I always wanted to start an internet rumor that the world is running out of salt and see if I get any takers.

NoMan
11th October 07, 02:47 PM
No accurate predictions about the rate of warming based on the anthropogenic hypothesis have ever been made. Nobody disputes an upward temperature trend (we emerged from a miniture ice-age in the 18th century), many scientists dispute an anthropogenic cause.

How many scientists in the relevant fields dispute it versus the percentage of scientists in the relevant fields who think it's happening? I'm pretty sure you know which field has a larger amount of people in it.

The hallmark of science is not prediction anyway, economics is horrible at predictions, so is psychology, biology (pick the next derived homologous or analogous trait), meteorology, etc. It's the ability of science to explain what has happened with relevant data, not make extrapolations of data. Any inductive argument, as all those fields are, cannot make many meaningful predictions about the future without having all the data in the world available. That was the basis for complexity and chaos science anyway.

Cullion
11th October 07, 03:06 PM
How many scientists in the relevant fields dispute it versus the percentage of scientists in the relevant fields who think it's happening? I'm pretty sure you know which field has a larger amount of people in it.

The hallmark of science is not prediction anyway, economics is horrible at predictions, so is psychology, biology (pick the next derived homologous or analogous trait), meteorology, etc. It's the ability of science to explain what has happened with relevant data, not make extrapolations of data. Any inductive argument, as all those fields are, cannot make many meaningful predictions about the future without having all the data in the world available. That was the basis for complexity and chaos science anyway.

The cornerstone of the scientific method is that a hypothesis must make testable predictions. Biological theories are established by making testable predictions. Psychology and economics when practiced as science, which is not always the case makes verifiable predictions.

Any model you construct to explain data must be testable by objective means or you are not practicing science.

DAYoung
11th October 07, 03:52 PM
In Cullion's defense, it's worth noting that 'prediction' doesn't simply mean the auguring of some hypothetical state of affairs tomorrow.

It can simply mean that an experiment is reproducible, i.e. what happened this time under these conditions, will happen next time under the same conditions.

This is certainly the case for biology, experimental psychology, and so on.

Zendetta
11th October 07, 04:24 PM
Their next thing will be fresh water.

Are you doubting this? Because the smart ones are already saying it. And if you don't know about water politics in, say, South america, then your really need to get clued in, and fast.

DAYoung
11th October 07, 04:28 PM
It's certainly a problem here. And I know Israel is always keen to secure fresh water sources.

Cullion
11th October 07, 04:48 PM
Couldn't you just hack off chunks of the antarctic, tow them to your coast and then melt them with nuclear energy?

DAYoung
11th October 07, 04:50 PM
Couldn't you just hack off chunks of the antarctic and melt with with nuclear energy?

Great idea.

But all our scientists and engineers have moved to the UK.

Cullion
11th October 07, 04:55 PM
I honestly don't understand why australasians seem to flock here. I mean I can understand taking holidays to see a bit of cultural heritage for those of british ancestry, maybe visit long-lost family etc.. but settling here to work?

The ratio of cost of most life essentials relative to the average wage is worse, the weather is worse and without having been to Australia, I'm guessing that the lower population density means you don't have to spend over an hour travelling 10 miles at rush hour because of the traffic congestion. Why do they come?

DAYoung
11th October 07, 05:04 PM
I honestly don't understand why australasians seem to flock here. I mean I can understand taking holidays to see a bit of cultural heritage for those of british ancestry, maybe visit long-lost family etc.. but settling here to work?

The ratio of cost of most life essentials relative to the average wage is worse, the weather is worse and without having been to Australia, I'm guessing that the lower population density means you don't have to spend over an hour travelling 10 miles at rush hour because of the traffic congestion. Why do they come?

Available jobs and prestige (a job in London is more impressive than an equivalent job in Melbourne).

And I suspect the peak hour traffic here is just as bad (dodgy transport infrastructure in cities).

Cullion
11th October 07, 05:36 PM
and prestige (a job in London is more impressive than an equivalent job in Melbourne).

Heh, you must be smiling inside not to have been caught by that trick. Incidentally, our young medical professionals are apparently flooding to Oz as fast as your government will let them. I also have a good mate who works in the 'corporate' world who is making out like a bandit in Melbourne because of some apparent shortage of 'professionals'. He's self employed and does marketing. He often tells me with genuine suprise, rather than a bragging tone, that the older executives who employ him seem genuinely impressed with stuff he suggests which is obvious, standard practice in London.


And I suspect the peak hour traffic here is just as bad (dodgy transport infrastructure in cities).

I wouldn't know. Let's do a real world comparison. I live in the country about 12 miles from Oxford. I work on the other side of Oxford, a total of about 16 miles. I take public transport most days. Public transport (2 bus journeys) takes me about an hour and a half on average. By car it's the same during rush hour, but only 30 minutes out of rush hour. How is it where you live?

DAYoung
11th October 07, 05:55 PM
OK. I'm about seven kilometres from work. If I drive in peak hour, it can take up to an hour. Otherwise, it's about fifteen minutes. By public transport, it's about thirty to forty-five minutes.

Cullion
11th October 07, 05:57 PM
Sounds simillar, although your public transport sounds better. The reason mine isn't any faster outside of rush hour is that after rush hour, the services get much less frequent, so there's much more waiting around.

DAYoung
11th October 07, 06:04 PM
The public transport might be slightly faster (might be), but you can be assured that yours has much better coverage.

If you ever get to Melbourne, you will be astonished at how silly it is. My sister-in-law lives seven minutes drive away. It takes up to an hour and a half by public transport, because we have to go back to the city (the opposite direction), get infrequent connections, and so on.

Shawarma
12th October 07, 06:34 AM
LMAO, Al Gore just got the Nobel Peace Prize. Suck it, doubters! :D

Cullion
12th October 07, 07:08 AM
LMAO, Al Gore just got the Nobel Peace Prize. Suck it, doubters! :D

So did Yasser Arafat, that's how little it's worth.

Sun Wukong
12th October 07, 07:48 AM
yeah OK, just hold on a minute while people praise you for doing something to make the world a better place... right. wasn't very long. yassir arafat could have been a hell of alot worse. he extended a few olive branches which the israelies promptly lit on fire and threw back in his face. I think he really did try to make peace in his own way.

Cullion
12th October 07, 08:21 AM
I'm a nicer guy than Yasser Arafat, where's my peace prize ?

Lu Tze
12th October 07, 11:48 AM
I think he really did try to make peace in his own way.He died a billionaire while the people he was supposed to represent lived in abject poverty and desperation. It's all right saying his efforts were confounded by the Israelis, but he managed to find a way to line his own pockets easily enough.

He's also a terrorist who planned the murder of 11 Olympic athletes, or have people forgotten this?

Arafat was a grade A cunt. Fuck him, and the commitee who awarded him a 'peace' prize.

Zendetta
12th October 07, 02:57 PM
Oh My Fucking Gawd, you fuckers are soooo fucking OWNED.

Gore (and the UN Panel) was just awarded the Nobel Prize.


The Nobel Peace Prize committee also cited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for two decades of scientific reports that have "created an ever-broader informed consensus about the connection between human activities and global warming."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21262661/

Zendetta
12th October 07, 02:59 PM
I'm a nicer guy... where's my peace prize ?

Theres no Nobel Prize for unflinching contrarianism.

NoMan
12th October 07, 10:26 PM
The cornerstone of the scientific method is that a hypothesis must make testable predictions. Biological theories are established by making testable predictions. Psychology and economics when practiced as science, which is not always the case makes verifiable predictions

The cornerstone of science is actually falsifiability. The ability to figure out a way to disprove a hypothesis, not a way to prove that a hypothesis makes predictions about the future. You're also leaving me confused on what type of prediction you want. In biological models, the Hardy-Weinberg model is used for distribution of alleles in a population frequency without selective pressure. It predicts that with a high rate of selective pressure, the frequency of alleles in a population will shift. But it makes no predictions on what types will change, the rate of change, what mutations will arise in future generations, etc. It only says that nothing will change without genetic drift, selective pressure, bottlenecking, or some other external factor.

You have to tell me what you mean by "predicting the exact rate of earth's warming". All you need is to predict that a higher level of human emissions will increase the Earth's average temperature, not the exact rate of temperature rising.

Best article skeptical of that is here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/numerical_models_integrated_ci.html

But a scientific article which does predict it and works is here:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;292/5515/193

Sun Wukong
12th October 07, 10:43 PM
that nobel peace prize given to arafat was also a way of encouraging peaceful initiatives. he was a twat, so was moammar qaddafi. He was given a piece prize for advocating peaceful initiatives instead of blowing shit up. Yeah, he killed those athletes, and he deserved to die for what he did, but he didn't. He stayed alive for a long time and managed to escape justice. But he did change how he did things to at least observe the peace process.

Israel is alot like the US in alot of ways, and they have alot of the US's foils by way of expansionism. They weren't exactly dealing above board with the palestinians either. I'd rather that money arafat horded up sit in a bank account than get dumped into funding the military movement he could have afforded with it.

DAYoung
13th October 07, 01:11 AM
The cornerstone of science is actually falsifiability. The ability to figure out a way to disprove a hypothesis, not a way to prove that a hypothesis makes predictions about the future.

Can you define your use of 'prediction' here?

jubei33
13th October 07, 08:00 AM
good hypotheses should by their nature make predictions about future events.

for example, If you hypothesize: x amount of energy hitting an atom with raise the energy of its electrons to a higher energy state, when released will yield a photon, then you can make predictions about how much energy will be released, the wavelength, etc.

Making predictions is the very nature of experimentation.

NoMan
13th October 07, 01:21 PM
Can you define your use of 'prediction' here?

I'm using it in the biological sense of the word. I already gave the example. The Hardy-Weinberg model predicts that in a world without selective pressure, genetic drift, or random mutations the allele frequency in a population will be stable. This can't be tested, there's no known population which doesn't have selective pressure, mutations, or genetic drift naturally.

What you can do is test it by cranking up the selective pressure. The two most prominent tests in this regard are the killifish tests and the fake snake test. The killifish test was just putting populations of guppies in two different lakes, one where the predator in the lake ate baby guppies, but didn't eat the larger ones, one where the predator ate the larger guppies, but not the babies. Over time, the two different populations matured at different rates and reached different overall body sizes, as evolution would predict given the selective pressures.

But, if some snarky guy came up before the test and said, "Tell me which genes will be selected, at what rate will the selection occur, and in how many generations, and when will there be an equilibrium of the species at this new bodyweight?", no scientist could tell him. That level of prediction is impossible. He could then jump up and down and go, "Yay, evolution couldn't predict the genetic change, creationism is saved!", but he'd be wrong.

To disprove this experiment, he'd have to create a replicate experiment and have the results come out different, that's falsifiability. If you're clever enough, you can shoehorn data into a theory, but if it's falsifiable, you can test that theory and find a disconfirmation of it. Since evolution is potentially falsifiable, but no one has done it, evolution is considered a true theory. Again though, if you wanted to know what species would arise in future populations, no geneticist could tell you. There's only prediction of a general trend.

That's what I'm arguing about with Cullion. Scientific models done on global warming have shown time and time again that greenhouse gas emissions trap heat inside the atmosphere, which causes more heat to become trapped, etc., etc., etc. He's saying, "none of them predict the exact rate of atmospheric heating". (Paraphrasing).

The exact rate can't be predicted because there are too many variables, but the general trend most certainly can. This theory is falsifiable, if someone could show how in a closed environment greenhouse gasses did not increase the temperature, they would win the argument. Since I know of no experiment that falsifies the greenhouse gas theory, I think of it as the true theory.

WarPhalange
13th October 07, 01:33 PM
Can you define your use of 'prediction' here?

I throw a ball in the air, I can calculate where it lands.

Essentially, your theory of how things work needs to extend to the future, where you propose some sort of experiment, and your theory predicts what will happen.

nihilist
13th October 07, 01:34 PM
I will throw my balls in the air and they will land in your mouth.

DAYoung
13th October 07, 02:53 PM
I'm using it in the biological sense of the word. I already gave the example. The Hardy-Weinberg model predicts that in a world without selective pressure, genetic drift, or random mutations the allele frequency in a population will be stable. This can't be tested, there's no known population which doesn't have selective pressure, mutations, or genetic drift naturally.

What you can do is test it by cranking up the selective pressure. The two most prominent tests in this regard are the killifish tests and the fake snake test. The killifish test was just putting populations of guppies in two different lakes, one where the predator in the lake ate baby guppies, but didn't eat the larger ones, one where the predator ate the larger guppies, but not the babies. Over time, the two different populations matured at different rates and reached different overall body sizes, as evolution would predict given the selective pressures.

But, if some snarky guy came up before the test and said, "Tell me which genes will be selected, at what rate will the selection occur, and in how many generations, and when will there be an equilibrium of the species at this new bodyweight?", no scientist could tell him. That level of prediction is impossible. He could then jump up and down and go, "Yay, evolution couldn't predict the genetic change, creationism is saved!", but he'd be wrong.

To disprove this experiment, he'd have to create a replicate experiment and have the results come out different, that's falsifiability. If you're clever enough, you can shoehorn data into a theory, but if it's falsifiable, you can test that theory and find a disconfirmation of it. Since evolution is potentially falsifiable, but no one has done it, evolution is considered a true theory. Again though, if you wanted to know what species would arise in future populations, no geneticist could tell you. There's only prediction of a general trend.

That's what I'm arguing about with Cullion. Scientific models done on global warming have shown time and time again that greenhouse gas emissions trap heat inside the atmosphere, which causes more heat to become trapped, etc., etc., etc. He's saying, "none of them predict the exact rate of atmospheric heating". (Paraphrasing).

The exact rate can't be predicted because there are too many variables, but the general trend most certainly can. This theory is falsifiable, if someone could show how in a closed environment greenhouse gasses did not increase the temperature, they would win the argument. Since I know of no experiment that falsifies the greenhouse gas theory, I think of it as the true theory.

Good. This (rather long) explanation was what I thought.

Thanks for taking the time.

DAYoung
13th October 07, 02:55 PM
Essentially, your theory of how things work needs to extend to the future, where you propose some sort of experiment, and your theory predicts what will happen.

This was my sense. You can't predict everything, but you must be able to predict those future events necessary for your hypothesis to be falsified or otherwise.

Falsifiability requires some kind of prediction.

Olorin
13th October 07, 07:25 PM
I will throw my balls in the air and they will land in your mouth.

LOL...I love Sociocide.


Essentially, your theory of how things work needs to extend to the future, where you propose some sort of experiment, and your theory predicts what will happen.

http://www.bullshido.net/gallery/data/500/medium/the_difference.png

nihilist
14th October 07, 12:51 AM
http://www.bullshido.net/gallery/data/500/medium/the_difference.png

Wow, after careful study of the example above, I have amended my theory to
stipulate that only the right one will land on a scientist.

Cullion
14th October 07, 04:03 PM
Good. This (rather long) explanation was what I thought.

Thanks for taking the time.

The problem with his argument is that they keep proclaiming various ill-defined disaster scenarios when they admit not having a means of predicting whether they will come to pass and where the money would need to be spent to defend against them, and they are happy to assure us that the models show industrial activity is to blame despite the fact that more extreme warming and cooling events have occurred for millions of years in the absence of human industrial activity.

Essentially the models aren't predictive enough to show that human industrial activity is the cause or what the actual effect will be in detailed enough terms to defend us against it or even decide if we need defending against it and therefore aren't yet well established enough as a basis for large scale political action.

Cullion
14th October 07, 04:09 PM
Here's a question for those who support the anthropogenic hypothesis. Explain what the net warming effect you expect is numerically, and then detail why you expect that to cause more harm than good. It's not sufficient to say 'humans changing the environment is always bad'. That's irrational.

DAYoung
14th October 07, 04:14 PM
The problem with his argument is that they keep proclaiming various ill-defined disaster scenarios when they admit not having a means of predicting whether they will come to pass and where the money would need to be spent to defend against them, and they are happy to assure us that the models show industrial activity is to blame despite the fact that more extreme warming and cooling events have occurred for millions of years in the absence of human industrial activity.

Essentially the models aren't predictive enough to show that human industrial activity is the cause or what the actual effect will be in detailed enough terms to defend us against it or even decide if we need defending against it and therefore aren't yet well established enough as a basis for large scale political action.

I was commenting on his clarification of 'prediction'.

More on climate change later.

Shawarma
14th October 07, 04:15 PM
If we're talking about WARMING, then it's mainly a question of the Africans, Arabs and other poor people in hot places getting it RIGHT IN THE ASS with vanishing lakes and even more droughts than usual. Expect MASSIVE starvation and subsequent immigration waves.

It would also cost billions of billions of billions of dollars for the richer and more cool countries to totally alter their agricultural procedures after any unusually fast and permanent jumps in temperature. And that's not even bringing the "Will We Be Flooded?" factor into it.

Cullion
14th October 07, 04:28 PM
I was commenting on his clarification of 'prediction'.

So was I. I think his clarification was misleading in that it failed to correlate the level of certainty required before it is appropriate to suggest a level of action. There are many types of prediction which are both possible and necessary for an anthropogenic hypothesis to make, which they either have failed at, or are not yet able to make, before the associated suggestions for action are to be taken seriously.

DAYoung
14th October 07, 05:31 PM
So was I. I think his clarification was misleading in that it failed to correlate the level of certainty required before it is appropriate to suggest a level of action. There are many types of prediction which are both possible and necessary for an anthropogenic hypothesis to make, which they either have failed at, or are not yet able to make, before the associated suggestions for action are to be taken seriously.

Yes, but you were commenting about the specific case.

I was trying to get a handle on his philosophy of science more generally (which would be incomplete if he stressed falsification above all else).

Cullion
14th October 07, 05:48 PM
I was commenting on his clarification of 'prediction'.

Yeah, but he spun it!

Cullion
14th October 07, 05:49 PM
If we're talking about WARMING, then it's mainly a question of the Africans, Arabs and other poor people in hot places getting it RIGHT IN THE ASS with vanishing lakes and even more droughts than usual. Expect MASSIVE starvation and subsequent immigration waves.

It would also cost billions of billions of billions of dollars for the richer and more cool countries to totally alter their agricultural procedures after any unusually fast and permanent jumps in temperature. And that's not even bringing the "Will We Be Flooded?" factor into it.

Which model makes those predictions? links please.

DAYoung
14th October 07, 05:54 PM
Yeah, but he spun it!

In the words of Feyerabend: Meh.

Cullion
14th October 07, 05:56 PM
In the words of Feyerabend: Meh.

To be more precise, he gave an analogy from evolutionary genetics which doesn't apply here for serveral clear reasons.

DAYoung
14th October 07, 06:24 PM
To be more precise, he gave an analogy from evolutionary genetics which doesn't apply here for serveral clear reasons.

Someone needs a hug.

Cullion
14th October 07, 06:25 PM
Someone needs a hug.

Yes, but it won't make all the junk science go away. I've tried.

DAYoung
14th October 07, 06:32 PM
Yes, but it won't make all the junk science go away. I've tried.

No, no, I mean a person, not your Star Wars pillows.

Cullion
14th October 07, 06:36 PM
No, no, I mean a person, not your Star Wars pillows.

And I thought you were a good person, Dr. Young.

DAYoung
14th October 07, 06:42 PM
And I thought you were a good person, Dr. Young.

More religious faith on your part, I'm afraid.

Shawarma
14th October 07, 06:50 PM
Which model makes those predictions? links please.
Absolutely no model. Just what I think would most certainly happen.

The drought in hot places is a no-brainer. This would happen in case of global warming. I don't see how it wouldn't.

The bit about the agriculture of wealthy countries losing a lot of money due to neccesary restructuring also seems likely. More irrigation might be needed and some forms of agriculture might even become unprofitable in certain locations and force farmers to look for alternative crops, which could easily be expensive to switch to.

Cullion
14th October 07, 06:54 PM
Absolutely no model. Just what I think would most certainly happen.

The drought in hot places is a no-brainer. This would happen in case of global warming. I don't see how it wouldn't.

The bit about the agriculture of wealthy countries losing a lot of money due to neccesary restructuring also seems likely. More irrigation might be needed and some forms of agriculture might even become unprofitable in certain locations and force farmers to look for alternative crops, which could easily be expensive to switch to.


See, that's why this 'applying 1-variable experiments in a lab regarding the heat absorption of CO2' is such a stupidly unscientific way of trying to predict what human industrial activity will do to the climate. Why are you assuming that even if the global temperature average is increasing due to human activity, that currently hot places will get hotter and dryer?, it might lead to changes in local weather patterns which make that untrue.

The antarctic is actually getting colder for example.

Again, show me the actual model, and lets see how good its predictions have been so far.

Shawarma
14th October 07, 07:00 PM
You asked "What do you think would happen with more global WARMING." I answered what I thought would happen because it would make sense.

Here's a model for you, since you seem to think about them a lot
http://data63.sevenload.com/i/iu/md/ssk3dav/sjw.jpg

Edit: I would also like to add that my vague guesses are as valid as yours, especially since you base your scepticism on heelarious conspiracy theories of evil socialist scientists conspiring with moneygrubbing gubarmints to take your monies.

Cullion
14th October 07, 07:04 PM
You asked "What do you think would happen with more global WARMING." I answered what I thought would happen because it would make sense.

Yes, and you misunderstood that global warming doesn't mean 'everywhere gets warmer' it means 'the global average increases'. What you're talking about is the version of the hypothesis which has now being falsified and was getting promoted about 10 years ago. That's why they now call it the more general term 'climate change'. Because they're even less sure about what they think will actually happen.



Here's a model for you, since you seem to think about them a lot
http://data63.sevenload.com/i/iu/md/ssk3dav/sjw.jpg

I already have a blonde, I therefore prefer to fantasize about brunettes.

DAYoung
14th October 07, 07:09 PM
That's why they now call it the more general term 'climate change'. Because they're even less sure about what they think will actually happen.

But they are sure that something will happen. And that's what worries me.

Shawarma
14th October 07, 07:19 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but doesn't the fact that "some areas will get warmer" automatically mean that my second point would be true? That significant and quite likely expensive agricultural restructuring would be neccesary in those areas?

I don't enjoy the thought of any kind of climate change one bit. I see evidence of it where I live (sea levels have risen to levels significantly higher than even my 90 year old auntie's seen before) and I don't see how you can deny that climate change = neccesary changes in human, animal and plant existence in the affected areas.

Shawarma
14th October 07, 07:20 PM
Cullion, why the fuck do you call yourself a Libertarian? Isn't the term Libertarian when used by a Brit interchangeable with the word Liberal?

NoMan
14th October 07, 09:41 PM
From my link:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;292/5515/193

Also should be pointed out that Science is a very respected, peer-reviewed journal.


. Last year, oceanographer Sydney Levitus of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in Silver Spring, Maryland, and his colleagues reported that the top 3000 meters of oceans worldwide had gained 18.2 x 1022 joules of heat between 1955 and 1996 (Science, 24 March 2000, p. 2126). In their new paper, they calculate that less than a tenth as much heat as that went into warming the global atmosphere and melting sea ice and glaciers. Their conclusion: If you're keeping track of the heat trapped by the strengthening greenhouse, the ocean is almost all that matters.

With that pivotal role in mind, both Barnett and Levitus tested greenhouse warming in a climate model against how the ocean has actually warmed. Barnett used the Parallel Climate Model developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado, and Levitus used the model from NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, New Jersey. Both groups drove the warming with the increasing greenhouse gases of the past century, and both found that the models' world oceans warmed by just about as much as observed. And it appears that the ocean warming was likely due to increasing greenhouse gases, not the random oscillations of the climate system that modelers call internal variability. "The rising heat content of the past 50 years is way out of the bounds of internal variability" produced in a model, says modeler Thomas Delworth of GFDL, a co-author of the Levitus paper. The warming in the model ocean so closely matched the strength and geographical distribution of the actual warming that Barnett calculated with confidence exceeding 95% that human-produced greenhouse gases are behind real-world warming.

While the results of the two models further support the emerging consensus that humans are warming the world (see main text), they also drive home problems with making predictions from models. Just how bad warming will get by the end of the century, say, will depend on how much greenhouse gas--principally carbon dioxide--enters the atmosphere and how strongly the climate system reacts to it, a property called climate sensitivity. For more than 20 years, researchers have been estimating that climate sensitivity to a doubling of carbon dioxide is between a modest 1.5ºC warming and a searing 4.5ºC. Indeed, the NCAR and GFDL models reflect that recalcitrant uncertainty in their climate sensitivities of 2.1ºC and 3.4ºC, respectively.

How, then, can the two models agree about the past century of ocean warming· The explanation may lie in one of the remaining knobs on the climate machine: aerosols, the microscopic particles of sulfate, soot, and organic crud produced by fossil fuel burning, biomass burning, and volcanoes. Researchers are still figuring out how much aerosol of each sort is up there, how effectively each absorbs solar energy or reflects it back to space, and how each affects the number and size of cloud particles, another potent player in the climate system. The two models assumed different fossil-fuel aerosol histories, and the NCAR model ignored volcanic aerosols--discrepancies that may have compensated for differences in the models' sensitivities. As a result, says climate modeler Myles Allen of the University of Oxford, "both models could be right for the wrong reason." But whichever is more realistic, Allen says, the finding that real-world warming is not likely due to internal variability stands--although clearly, some better informed knob twiddling is still in order.

So we have 2.1 and 3.4 C at current trends, assuming no exponential increase or decrease.


The problem with his argument is that they keep proclaiming various ill-defined disaster scenarios when they admit not having a means of predicting whether they will come to pass and where the money would need to be spent to defend against them, and they are happy to assure us that the models show industrial activity is to blame despite the fact that more extreme warming and cooling events have occurred for millions of years in the absence of human industrial activity.

The second part is pure silliness. Yes, the atmosphere of the Earth has changed dramatically over the course of human history, but never at the rate that it is changing right now. Likewise, even mass extinction rates in past history don't compare with what we're seeing right now in biology. In both cases, excusing anthropogenic causes of both because they happened in the past is like excusing the Armenian genocide because genocides have happened in the past. Moral and scientific laziness is not the answer.

The first part is more significant, which is a question for economists, who study the effects of monetary policies on the environment. I think the best policy is to allow carbon-trading between developed and developing countries. Part of the problem of CO emissions is related to the mass extinction problem, which is also related to the global warming problem. Deforestation causes a loss of plant and animal diversity, in addition, it reduces the amount of plants available to convert CO into oxygen, about 20% of global warming is caused by deforestation alone.

The Kyoto Protocal partially addressed this by saying that counries should replant trees, but did not give any incentives towards maintaining their forests already. New Guinea and Costa Rica recognized this and formed the "Rainforest Coalition". (Not as ironic when you don't have a major gay rights movement in your country). By allowing countries to have “carbon offsets”, (allowing developed countries to emit more than they normally would), they could pay for planting a forest, or “carbon sequestering”.

This makes it voluntary, allows the offset of carbon expenses, increases the incentives to search for alternatives, etc.


Essentially the models aren't predictive enough to show that human industrial activity is the cause

Like I said, near universal scientific agreeement from a broad range of disciplines in several different countries. This is again the prediction problem, you are using it in a way that scientists do not.


or what the actual effect will be in detailed enough terms to defend us

Rising sea levels, change in tides and water flow patterns, increased populations of mosquitoes, and some winners in colder regions where new settlements will be opened up, along with new trade routes and places to search more oil. This is the part where the broadest of broad range consensus agrees, whether or not anyone agrees it is anthropogenic.

Cullion
15th October 07, 05:13 AM
Cullion, why the fuck do you call yourself a Libertarian? Isn't the term Libertarian when used by a Brit interchangeable with the word Liberal?

No, but it used to be. The Liberals of the 19th century otherwise known as 'classical liberals' or 'whigs' were broadly speaking advocates of government non-intervention, both in society and in trade. Lord Acton would be an example of such a 'Liberal as moderate Libertarian'. Around the beginning of the 20th century they started drifting towards a more socialistic worldview where their definition of 'liberty' started to include positive rights such as 'freedom from poverty'.

The modern heirs of this movement in the UK are called the Liberal Democrat party (the largest of the 'third parties' in our system). They are generally to the left economically, but they tend to be anti-war and liberal on social issues such as Marijuana. I voted for them at the last general election, mostly for anti-war reasons and because they oppose the growth of 'surveillance culture' in the UK, whilst not being at all happy with their economic policies.

Cullion
15th October 07, 05:25 AM
The second part is pure silliness. Yes, the atmosphere of the Earth has changed dramatically over the course of human history, but never at the rate that it is changing right now.

Yes it has. There was a dramatic increase in CO2 concentration between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago. And it's changed at faster rates before the existence of modern man, too.



Likewise, even mass extinction rates in past history don't compare with what we're seeing right now in biology. In both cases, excusing anthropogenic causes of both because they happened in the past is like excusing the Armenian genocide because genocides have happened in the past. Moral and scientific laziness is not the answer.

It's not a question of excusing anthropogenic anything. It's a question of pointing out that the anthropogenic case isn't yet well enough demonstrated, and nor is it predictive enough to tell us how we should actually act.




The first part is more significant, which is a question for economists, who study the effects of monetary policies on the environment. I think the best policy is to allow carbon-trading between developed and developing countries. Part of the problem of CO emissions is related to the mass extinction problem, which is also related to the global warming problem. Deforestation causes a loss of plant and animal diversity, in addition, it reduces the amount of plants available to convert CO into oxygen, about 20% of global warming is caused by deforestation alone.

See, the models aren't even sophisticated enough to tell us that we ought to be trying to reduce the atmosphere's CO2 content, but you're jumping straight to that.


[qutoe]
Like I said, near universal scientific agreeement from a broad range of disciplines in several different countries. This is again the prediction problem, you are using it in a way that scientists do not.[/quote]

There is not near universal agreement and scientists are being manipulated by the withdrawal of grants and the loss of tenure into supporting the hypothesis. I am using the prediction problem in a way that some scientists do not. Those are the scientists who I think are wrong.



Rising sea levels, change in tides and water flow patterns, increased populations of mosquitoes, and some winners in colder regions where new settlements will be opened up, along with new trade routes and places to search more oil. This is the part where the broadest of broad range consensus agrees, whether or not anyone agrees it is anthropogenic.

Yes, there is certainly a warming trend at present. We don't really know how long it will last, what's causing it or what local effects it will have.

Cullion
15th October 07, 05:28 AM
Y
Edit: I would also like to add that my vague guesses are as valid as yours, especially since you base your scepticism on heelarious conspiracy theories of evil socialist scientists conspiring with moneygrubbing gubarmints to take your monies.

They are not 'heelarious conspiracy theories'. The denial of grant money and loss of position, and misuse of scientists names who did not agree with report conclusions is documented.

Kein Haar
15th October 07, 09:08 AM
I don't enjoy the thought of any kind of climate change one bit.

What an odd thing to decide not to enjoy.

Me? Not a big fan of the tides. Nope. Never was.

NoMan
15th October 07, 10:11 AM
Yes it has. There was a dramatic increase in CO2 concentration between 10,000 and 15,000 years ago. And it's changed at faster rates before the existence of modern man, too.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/carbdiox.html

The highest level of pre-industrial CO2 gases were 270 ppmv, with 325 as the absolute highest point around 325,000 years ago. Right now it's at 370 ppmv, higher than anything known. What sources are you using for this?



See, the models aren't even sophisticated enough to tell us that we ought to be trying to reduce the atmosphere's CO2 content, but you're jumping straight to that.

In a peer-reviewed publication, they usually have strict limits to your thesis and what you can talk about. In this case, it was demonstrating a model that predicted the rise in temperature. To write a paper about what to do about it for peer-reviewed publication would probably get granted in an Economics Journal, (where I derived my idea from), not from a Science Journal. Science Journals dealing with human cloning, for example, don't talk about the etihcs involved in it.

Unless people want to see an increase in temperature, (since I live near the Gulf of Mexico and the Port of Orleans, my answer is "no"), the conclusion is obvious. Pollution = bad, (mostly, with some winners in certain areas).



There is not near universal agreement

Like I said, I can give you thirty international research groups that say global warming is real, combined amount to a few thousand scientists in each category. If anything close to that existed in the people who say Global Warming is not happening, or is not anthropogenic, they would pull them out. As I've seen it, only a handful of scientists have taken the position that it's not anthropogenic, the majority of skeptics say it might not be as bad as predicted, which seems more like wishful thinking than scientific analysis.


and scientists are being manipulated by the withdrawal of grants and the loss of tenure into supporting the hypothesis.

You know HIV skeptics make the exact same claim don't you? Even though it does happen, (Peter Duesberg did lose his prestiguous position for saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS), it has to happen at a rate frequent enough to show it changes the outcome.

And, unlike HIV skeptics, Exxon, Mobile, and other gas companies have funded their own research to disprove anthropogenic causes of global warming, giving an offset to the bias. They even went further and said they would straight up give money to the scientist that could do it. Grants do not earn you direct cash into the pocketbook.

Cullion
15th October 07, 03:40 PM
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/carbdiox.html

The highest level of pre-industrial CO2 gases were 270 ppmv, with 325 as the absolute highest point around 325,000 years ago. Right now it's at 370 ppmv, higher than anything known. What sources are you using for this?

Here's atmospheric CO2 data over geological timescales (the last 60 million years) from a paper in 'Nature'.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/images/406695ac.2.jpg

CO2 concentrations have clearly been much higher in the planet's past.

My point about the end of the last ice-age 10-15,000 years ago was regarding rate of change, not absolute values.

Cullion
15th October 07, 03:48 PM
In a peer-reviewed publication, they usually have strict limits to your thesis and what you can talk about. In this case, it was demonstrating a model that predicted the rise in temperature. To write a paper about what to do about it for peer-reviewed publication would probably get granted in an Economics Journal, (where I derived my idea from), not from a Science Journal. Science Journals dealing with human cloning, for example, don't talk about the etihcs involved in it.

The temperature rise predictions, sea level changes and precipitation changes have all failed so far, the economic inferences are nonsense because there are no clear predictions about what will physically occur locally.



Unless people want to see an increase in temperature, (since I live near the Gulf of Mexico and the Port of Orleans, my answer is "no"), the conclusion is obvious. Pollution = bad, (mostly, with some winners in certain areas).

That is too vague a basis to propose an international tax on.



Like I said, I can give you thirty international research groups that say global warming is real, combined amount to a few thousand scientists in each category. If anything close to that existed in the people who say Global Warming is not happening, or is not anthropogenic, they would pull them out. As I've seen it, only a handful of scientists have taken the position that it's not anthropogenic, the majority of skeptics say it might not be as bad as predicted, which seems more like wishful thinking than scientific analysis.

Scientific truth is approached by falsifiable predictions, not popularity contests.



You know HIV skeptics make the exact same claim don't you? Even though it does happen, (Peter Duesberg did lose his prestiguous position for saying HIV doesn't cause AIDS), it has to happen at a rate frequent enough to show it changes the outcome.

Irrelevant, stick to the facts of the subjects at hand.



And, unlike HIV skeptics, Exxon, Mobile, and other gas companies have funded their own research to disprove anthropogenic causes of global warming, giving an offset to the bias. They even went further and said they would straight up give money to the scientist that could do it. Grants do not earn you direct cash into the pocketbook.

Irrelevant. Funding source in a peer-reviewed journal article changes nothing about what is true and what isn't.

NoMan
15th October 07, 08:19 PM
The temperature rise predictions, sea level changes and precipitation changes have all failed so far,

This is a statement of faith on your part:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448550a.html


In the Northern Hemisphere, the range of terrestrial plants and animals has shifted, on average, 6.1 km per decade northward or 6.1 m per decade upwards, with advance of seasonal phenomena by 2.3–5.1 days per decade over the past 50 years. These changes are significantly correlated with measured changes in temperature and precipitation. The relationships are correlative in essence, but are too robust, numerous and consistent to be random or to have arisen from other factors (such as natural climatic variability or land-use change). Similarly, the remarkable increase in the plant diversity of some high-elevation peaks in Switzerland over the past 100 years, owing to the upward shift of species that traditionally inhabited lower elevations, can be attributed to changed climate regimes.

Correlated to this, we know that:

http://www.cet.edu/ete/modules/climate/GCremote3.html


Scientists estimate that mean global temperatures have increased by 0.5 to 1.0 °F (0.3 to 0.6 °C) in the last 100 years.

But there's yet more:

http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf

For 3000 years from the start of the 19th century, the sea level rose at .1 to .2 mm/yr. From the 19th century to now, it's been 1 to 2 mm per year, with 1993 onwards hitting up to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm.

So we have a mean increase of .3 to .6C, a mass migration of animals from areas they were normally at, accelerated extinction rates, and a sea level rise that's 3100% faster than what we've seen for the past 30,000 years. That is a incredibly remarkable amount of coincidences all occuring at the exact same time.

For the levels of CO and its relation to temperature, if you go back millions and millions of years ago, you are correct, levels have been higher. Since humans didn't exist at that time period, and we're arguing about anthropogenesis, it's irrelevant. The article with the figure you put up is worth quoting though:


early Cenozoic warmth was caused by high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere

Which supports the global warming theory, not disconfirms it. Further down, the article states:


Modelling of the atmosphere suggests that pCO2 forces surface temperature in a logarithmic relationship. We use the equation of Kiehl and Dickinson34 to estimate the level of greenhouse heating predicted by our pCO2 estimates. We note that the relatively small changes in pCO2 that occurred in the Neogene would have had a disproportionately large effect on surface temperature because absorption of outgoing radiation by CO2 is further from saturation at low values. In Fig. 4, we compare this record with the oxygen-isotope ratio (18O) of deep sea benthic foraminifera35, 36, 37, which is an important climate proxy that reflects both cooling and ice growth.[/quote]

The figure shows a spike in termperature as CO2 levels were highest, and cooling down during periods where they are lower.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/fig_tab/406695a0_F4.html

And another article related to that:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/full/nature06085.html


Our results provide a basis for discriminating between previous competing hypotheses regarding the character of Palaeozoic climate change and the 18O of the Phanerozoic ocean. First, we find that when atmospheric CO2 is inferred to have been highly elevated compared to modern levels—that is, during the Early Silurian—shallow-marine temperatures were markedly elevated, and when atmospheric CO2 was nearly as low as modern values—during the Middle Pennsylvanian—shallow-marine temperatures were similar to modern values1, 2. This result is consistent with the proposition that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration from the Silurian to the Pennsylvanian drove large variations in Earth surface temperatures1 (Fig. 2; but note this raises a new question as to how such warm temperatures could be consistent with geological evidence for high-latitude glaciation during the earliest Silurian12, 13). [b]More generally, our results are consistent with the hypothesis that elevated CO2 concentrations are capable of producing Earth surface temperatures substantially (5–11 °C) higher than modern values. Second, our results support previous arguments that the 18O of sea water has varied within a narrow range throughout the Phanerozoic eon23, 24 and argue against suggestions that it was several per mil lower during the Palaeozoic15, 17. Although there are many differences between Palaeozoic and modern climates, the suggestion our results give of a link between increased CO2 and a large temperature increase provides a point of reference for models of projected climate change associated with currently rising concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Two seperate papers from scientists show that higher atmospheric CO2 concentration lead to higher temperatures.


the economic inferences are nonsense because there are no clear predictions about what will physically occur locally.

I think there's more than enough evidence to guess at what that will be. I mean, how much more specific than this could you want:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448550a.html


Most immediately, the effects are shifts in species' geographical range, prompted by shifts in the normal patterns of temperatures and humidity that generally delimit species boundaries. Each 1 °C of temperature change moves ecological zones on Earth by about 160 km — so, for example, if the climate warms by 4 °C over the next century, species in the Northern Hemisphere may have to move northward by some 500 km (or 500 m higher in altitude) to find a suitable climatic regime. Higher temperatures are likely to be accompanied by more humid, wetter conditions, but the geographical and seasonal distribution of precipitation will change. Summer soil moisture will be reduced in many regions such as the Mediterranean basin, thus increasing drought stress. Overall, the ability of species to respond to climate change will largely depend on their ability to 'track' shifting climate through colonizing new territory, or to modify their physiology and seasonal behaviour (such as period of flowering or mating) to adapt to the changed conditions where they are.

What about the effect of atmospheric gases?

Carbon dioxide is, of course, known as one of the main drivers of the greenhouse effect, and so of increasing temperatures. But it is also essential for green-plant photosynthesis. Increased atmospheric CO2 results in an increase in photosynthesis rates (through CO2 fertilization), which could potentially balance the effect of temperature increase. This has the largest effect in regions where plant growth is limited by the availability of water, and will probably alter the competitive balance between species that differ in rooting depth, photosynthetic pathway or 'woodiness', as well as the subterranean organisms associated with them. Likewise, an increase of anthropogenic atmospheric nitrogen deposition affects nitrogen-limited regions (temperate and boreal forests, and alpine and Arctic regions) by conferring a competitive edge on plants with high maximum growth rates.

Which ecosystems are we talking about?

All of them, but climate change will affect them in different ways. For example, in marine ecosystems the possible consequences include increased thermal stratification (in which temperature differences separate water layers), reduced upwelling of nutrients, decreased pH and loss of sea ice. These changes will influence the timing and extent of the spring bloom of phytoplankton, and so the associated food chain (krill to fish to marine mammals and birds). On the terrestrial side, deserts, grasslands and savannahs in temperate regions are likely to respond to changes in precipitation and warming in various ways. Mediterranean-type ecosystems, which occur worldwide and are characterized by shrublands, are especially sensitive, as increased temperature and drought favour development of desert and grassland. In tropical regions, CO2 fertilization — in which plants absorb carbon from the atmosphere — and altered patterns of naturally occurring fires will have a strong influence. On tundra, low-growing plants are especially important as habitats for other organisms: their poleward movement will have an ecosystem-wide impact. Finally, species living on mountains are particularly sensitive to changed conditions, in that migration upwards can occur to only a limited extent.

The easiest way to cut down on global temperatures is to shoot sulphur into the atmosphere:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7141/full/447132a.html

This one was perfectly predicted by NASA:

http://www.maui.net/~jstark/nasa.html


Another very important aspect of greenhouse investigations has been the development of models. A number of climate models have been developed by NASA, and one of the most detailed is a General Circulation Model (GCM) developed by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City. A GCM uses extremely high-speed computers to solve the basic equations governing atmospheric motions and processes by numerical techniques. The GISS group, using its model, predicted that the annual global temperature would reach a new record high sometime during the first three years of the 1990's. Indeed, that record was reached in 1990. However, in June 1991, the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted and sent 25 to 30 million tons of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. There, the sulfur dioxide reacted with water vapor to produce a long-lasting haze of sulfuric acid droplets.

If smart economic ideas, preserving biodiversity, increasing efficiency, lessening dependence on Middle Eastern and African tyrannies, and other such arguments should fail to persuade someone that a smarter energy policy is necessary.


That is too vague a basis to propose an international tax on.

It works on very well-known economic principles, encourage good behavior and discourage bad behavior, "good" and "bad" defined as externalities that have hidden costs on all of us. In addition to converting CO gases, many cures have been found in rainforests, which benefit all of us. Making them economically profitable helps all of us. Conversely, polluting hurts all of us, and it's a subsidy to allow pollution without payment.


Scientific truth is approached by falsifiable predictions, not popularity contests.

I'd love to hear what predictions the nay-sayers have made that have been tested. I've given you three models which had predictions and came true.


Irrelevant, stick to the facts of the subjects at hand.

Absolutely relevant, in fact. Pointing out that the tactics used by nay-sayers are the same ones that HIV deniers use, Holocaust deniers, creationists, alien intelligence, etc. means that going, "IT'S A CONSPIRACY CAUSE THEY WON'T FUND MY CRACKPOT RESEARCH" is not a valid complaint, unless these other groups who lost funding are given due wait.


Irrelevant. Funding source in a peer-reviewed journal article changes nothing about what is true and what isn't.

I like my science as tested by thousands of scientists in a wide variety of disciplines, then published in journals where people can review it, where subsequent authors can can critique it, versus how most other people in the crackpot category go about it, hosting seminars or making their own organizations like the "Institute for Historical Accuracy" or "Institute for Creation Science".

NoMan
15th October 07, 08:28 PM
And for Dr. William Gray, the guy who was brought up on another thread, here's the response to him:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/

Much like Peter Duesberg, (who won the Nobel Prize in retrovirology and is still respected as a cancer researcher), being right about one thing does not make you right about another. Note that Dr. Gray understands the shortcomings of his work, he's never bothered to present them in a single peer-reviewed article, though he can. (Duesberg beats him on this too, he publishes, albeit heavily criticized papers).

The quote by researchers into Duesberg's claims are apt to most global warming skeptics as well:


researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses.

From wikipedia on him.

Cullion
16th October 07, 04:41 AM
This is a statement of faith on your part:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448550a.html

There is no prediction made in the paragraph you quote. It is an attempt to explain phenomena observed in the past. Predictions about future sea levels and temperature have been made by advocates of the anthropogenic hypothesis, but so for they've been wrong.




Correlated to this, we know that:

http://www.cet.edu/ete/modules/climate/GCremote3.html

But there's yet more:

http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf

Ditto. When they try to take these ideas to predict the future, they so far have been getting it wrong.



For 3000 years from the start of the 19th century, the sea level rose at .1 to .2 mm/yr. From the 19th century to now, it's been 1 to 2 mm per year, with 1993 onwards hitting up to 3.1 ± 0.7 mm.

So we have a mean increase of .3 to .6C, a mass migration of animals from areas they were normally at, accelerated extinction rates, and a sea level rise that's 3100% faster than what we've seen for the past 30,000 years. That is a incredibly remarkable amount of coincidences all occuring at the exact same time.

Not really, because such fluctuations have happened all throughout our planets history, and will continue to do so in future. 30,000 years is a miniscule amount of time geologically speaking. We've had more extreme hotter and colder climates over that last 30,000 years despite lower levels of CO2.



For the levels of CO and its relation to temperature, if you go back millions and millions of years ago, you are correct, levels have been higher. Since humans didn't exist at that time period, and we're arguing about anthropogenesis, it's irrelevant.

Your logic is totally back-asswards. You've just said 'yeah, well we know that we've had higher CO2 levels when humans weren't even around, but as I want to demonstrate anthropogenic warming, we have to ignore periods before modern man existed'. It doesn't make sense.

NoMan
16th October 07, 03:26 PM
There is no prediction made in the paragraph you quote. It is an attempt to explain phenomena observed in the past. Predictions about future sea levels and temperature have been made by advocates of the anthropogenic hypothesis, but so for they've been wrong.

We're going to go round on circles on this. The predictions were first made around 1892 that higher levels of CO would cause higher levels of atmospheric temperature. That statement is true as far as the geological evidence will let us look back. In 100 years, we've had a dramatic spike in CO2 levels. None of the factors present in the past that caused the spikes are present now.

You keep chanting the mantra, "past predictions have been wrong", without giving a single example of who made a prediction, based on what, and how far off they were. They were certainly right about a rise in water levels, a rise in mean temperatures, a decline in biodiversity, a migration pattern following colder weather patterns, and a decline in land surface ice. All came true.

Additionally, Dr. Maynard Gray has been challenged to place a bet by numerous scientists on his theory that temperature trends would reverse in 15 years. He's declined all of them. His level of prediction jujitsu is weaker than the advocates, who are right in broad trends. Since I know of no work that's made exact predictions, I can't say if they are or are not accurate.


Your logic is totally back-asswards. You've just said 'yeah, well we know that we've had higher CO2 levels when humans weren't even around, but as I want to demonstrate anthropogenic warming, we have to ignore periods
before modern man existed'. It doesn't make sense.

Sure it does. We were looking at time periods when a wide range of factors caused a high level of carbon dioxide emissions, which correlated to high temperatures, (with some mitigating circumstances). Your job is to prove one of those factors is at work now. Scientists thus far have said none of the factors are at work and blame the anthropogenic factor. Right now the people saying the anthropogenic factor is at work outnumber nay-sayers by at least a ratio of 100 to 1.

JohnnyCache
23rd October 07, 02:20 AM
Someone mentioned extinction rates? Extinction rates are patent bullshit, based on possible species density (badly derived species densities IMO) and habitat destruction - we only see these huge extinction rates if hypothetical species that have never been seen are assumed to be being made extinct without evidence.

If the extinction rates touted by environmentalists are accurate, and the number of known species accepted by biologists is also accurate, we would have run out of animals about the time Josephine baker pioneered her scintillating banana dance.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 05:09 AM
Noman, there is no onus whatsoever on scientists who feel that the anthropogenic warming hypothesis is weak to prove an alternative. The onus is entirely on advocates of the hypothesis to demonstrate it by making testable predictions and defend it against criticisms of methodology.

Anthropogenic advocates have been wrong in sea-level rises, average temperature increases and their models don't explain the observed temperature levels back through geologic time. It's weak science.

nihilist
23rd October 07, 10:16 AM
And I was so hoping for beachfront property.

Cullion
23rd October 07, 10:28 AM
The sea level is going down in some parts of the world, choose wisely.

nihilist
23rd October 07, 11:10 PM
Sounds like witchcraft to me.

danno
11th November 07, 05:11 AM
http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/9921/1194769555101ks1.gif