If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(London Times)   If you ignore Al Gore, you might as well be that Austrian crazy incest dungeon guy   (timesonline.co.uk) divider line 88
    More: Unlikely  
•       •       •

8063 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Jun 2008 at 1:11 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-06-02 02:03:20 PM
Commander Lysdexic:
i2.photobucket.com
i2.photobucket.com
i2.photobucket.com

i give it 3 outta 5 fails
 
2008-06-02 02:04:28 PM
Belac: Obscurenamehere: Pics or global warming will melt your head.

I can't really bring this up proper at work, but try this. I used GIS.

NSFW!

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/conte nt/100009.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1866387/posts&h =413&w=275&sz=28&hl=en&start=156&tbnid=hWNhMn3eYpT6GM:&tbnh=125&tbnw=83&prev=/im ages%3Fq%3DAl%2BGore%2Bdaughter%26start%3D140%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Den%26 safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
 
2008-06-02 02:11:59 PM
Once the power structure tells you to stop questioning and fall in line with policies which impinge on liberty, warning bells should go off. The claim that the debate is over on this is about as anti-intellectual as I have seen since the original evolution debate.

There is a nasty loop which develops when issues are labeled off limits or already decided. If some one disagrees and speaks out, they put their reputations and even their careers at risk, if they fall in line, and they have evidence to the contrary or even another angle or new questions which need to be asked and they stay silent they are betraying the basic principals of truth and integrity.

If the science is there, then it can stand up to challenges. It has been said that faith which cannot be challenged is not real faith, if this is true for religion, it is infinitely more true for science.
 
2008-06-02 02:15:42 PM
Yeah, but that Austrian crazy incest dungeon guy got laid!
 
2008-06-02 02:18:20 PM
jdmac: Once the power structure tells you to stop questioning and fall in line with policies which impinge on liberty, warning bells should go off. The claim that the debate is over on this is about as anti-intellectual as I have seen since the original evolution debate.

There is "fighting the power structure", and there is "manufacturing controversy to dilute scientific studies". And it's the power structure (e.g. government) which is doing the latter.

jdmac: If the science is there, then it can stand up to challenges.

It can stand up to scientific challenges. It gets thrashed in the political arena, because nobody wants to hear it or pay attention to it.
 
2008-06-02 02:23:15 PM
jdmac, I just wanted to add ...

... ummm ...

... nothing, really. You frikkin' nailed it.
 
2008-06-02 02:24:02 PM
Czech President says Environmentalism "Religion" is the new communism

Washington Times Reporting on Czech President Vaclav Klaus

He's right.
 
2008-06-02 02:29:10 PM
jdmac: Once the power structure tells you to stop questioning and fall in line with policies which impinge on liberty, warning bells should go off. The claim that the debate is over on this is about as anti-intellectual as I have seen since the original evolution debate.

There is a nasty loop which develops when issues are labeled off limits or already decided. If some one disagrees and speaks out, they put their reputations and even their careers at risk, if they fall in line, and they have evidence to the contrary or even another angle or new questions which need to be asked and they stay silent they are betraying the basic principals of truth and integrity.

If the science is there, then it can stand up to challenges. It has been said that faith which cannot be challenged is not real faith, if this is true for religion, it is infinitely more true for science.


Bang on.
 
2008-06-02 02:30:38 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: jdmac: Once the power structure tells you to stop questioning and fall in line with policies which impinge on liberty, warning bells should go off. The claim that the debate is over on this is about as anti-intellectual as I have seen since the original evolution debate.

There is "fighting the power structure", and there is "manufacturing controversy to dilute scientific studies". And it's the power structure (e.g. government) which is doing the latter.

jdmac: If the science is there, then it can stand up to challenges.

It can stand up to scientific challenges. It gets thrashed in the political arena, because nobody wants to hear it or pay attention to it.


Really, people who stand up against this are not called deniers and dismissed out of hand because their view does not match up with the politics of the green movement? There is not social pressure at colleges and universities not to put out information which might contradict public opinion? I seem to have heard/read about numerous examples of this.

Saving the Earth is a powerful motivating tool. We must be extra careful that those who are wielding this tool not use it for purely political purposes. The classic power grab is to exploit a crisis as a means to an end. Even with the purest initial intentions, any movement can be used for nefarious purposes. The road to hell it paved with good intentioned and is trodden up by useful idiots. It is our job as a free people to look at every proposal which could shave away even a fraction of our freedom with a critical eye. If we do not, we do not deserve the liberties we are afforded.

BTW: where is the global warming this year? It seems a bit colder? I have even heard mention that the globe has not actually been warming for a couple years now? Maybe it just is not effecting my area.
 
2008-06-02 02:33:27 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: It can stand up to scientific challenges. It gets thrashed in the political arena, because nobody wants to hear it or pay attention to it.

I've been slowly reading the IPCC stuff and there still seems to be some confusion about the what and the when. No doubt about the increases and the historical data, but definite variances on some of the percentage of blame that can be placed on different impacting forces - as well as issues regarding their potential impacts with regards to timing and level.

And is it just me or does Gore seem to be getting fatter and fatter? Kind of like he's morphing into Jabba.
 
2008-06-02 02:34:54 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay :
jdmac: If the science is there, then it can stand up to challenges.

It can stand up to scientific challenges. It gets thrashed in the political arena, because nobody wants to hear it or pay attention to it.


I beleive science is making a theory and proving it. The enviromentalist including the global warning croud have sure as heck made a lot of dire predictions and none have come true.
militant enviromentalism is just a popular doomsday religian. It is not the first universally accepted one in history either.
 
2008-06-02 02:36:47 PM
Terryg999: I G N O R E T H E G O R E

Well, yeah, he goes in the same category as the random uneducated guy on the internet expressing an opinion only vaguely, tangentally related to actual science. Well, actually he's ranked slightly lower on the respect-o-meter, by making money off it he's progressed to either 'genuinely deluded' or 'con artist'.

Not to say that I think global warming or anthropomorphic climate change or whatever it's called these days is nonexistent, the climate has been known to change and do so in response to human activity (especially things like 10-mile-radius collections of asphalt and concrete, try doing that without altering the wind patterns). But he is an uninformed asshat who's selling hysteria where it's not really merited for money and political influence. Not that all politicians don't do this, of course, but I get cranky when they offer up the integrity of my profession as a sacrificial lamb to transitory temporal power.

//Bullshiat -- not necessarily "untrue", just stated without regard for actual truth. There's a nice essay about this floating around somewhere.
 
2008-06-02 02:36:50 PM
fatassbastard: Not trying to be a dick, but if most feel the way I've described, then there can't be so many who are zealots as you suggest, right? Bear in mind that, in my experience at least, people like Jon Snow don't say skeptics are drooling morons, they just refute arguments and present evidence. Granted, there are a few on both sides who just call names without presenting any substance (or actually having any real idea what they're talking about).

Zealots are the most vocal, you should know that. If you dont believe that the sky is falling then you must just be dumb. And present evidence says what they think when it still could just be a naturally fluctuating temp cycle on the earth.

Science changes when most data/tools become available to examine the evidence, Im not ready to say we are causing it or that there is a damn thing we can do to prevent the cycle.
 
2008-06-02 02:36:55 PM
You know who ELSE was from Austria?
bayflicks.net
 
2008-06-02 02:38:30 PM
jdmac: Really, people who stand up against this are not called deniers and dismissed out of hand because their view does not match up with the politics of the green movement?

You ever been to an AMS conference? Most research these days is about bucking the standard theories.

jdmac (cont.): There is not social pressure at colleges and universities not to put out information which might contradict public opinion? I seem to have heard/read about numerous examples of this.

I've never seen it at my university, and I'm in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department. Our department was founded by Reid Bryson, a guy who completely disagrees with the consensus opinion on AGW. Most of the stories I hear are about scientists told to tone down the results of their AGW research for political reasons.

jdmac (cont.): Saving the Earth is a powerful motivating tool. We must be extra careful that those who are wielding this tool not use it for purely political purposes. The classic power grab is to exploit a crisis as a means to an end. Even with the purest initial intentions, any movement can be used for nefarious purposes. The road to hell it paved with good intentioned and is trodden up by useful idiots. It is our job as a free people to look at every proposal which could shave away even a fraction of our freedom with a critical eye. If we do not, we do not deserve the liberties we are afforded.

We need to be careful that scientific results which illustrate bad consequences for maintaining the status-quo aren't manipulated by those in power. You are looking at exactly one-half of the equation.

jdmac (cont.): BTW: where is the global warming this year? It seems a bit colder? I have even heard mention that the globe has not actually been warming for a couple years now? Maybe it just is not effecting my area.

This is a terrific example of why it's pointless to argue with lay-people about this. "It was cold this spring, so AGW must be wrong! Ha, ha, those dumb scientists. I even heard they are wrong and stuff." Do you really expect me to respond to this?
 
2008-06-02 02:41:03 PM
The amazing pestilence reached Paris that June [of 1348], and it was to afflict the city for a year and a half...King Philip [VI] asked the medical faculty of the University of Paris for an explanation of the disaster. The professors reported that a disturbance in the skies had caused the sun to overheat the oceans near India, and the waters had begun to give off noxious vapors. The medical faculty offered a variety of remedies. Broth would help, for example, if seasoned with ground pepper, ginger, and cloves. Poultry, water fowl, young pork and fatty meat in general were to be avoided. Olive oil could be fatal. Bathing was dangerous, but enemas could be helpful. "Men must preserve chastity," the doctors warned, "if they value their lives." The King still worried about the divine wrath. He issued an edict against blasphemy. For the first offense, the blasphemer's lip would be cut off; a second offense would cost him the other lip,and a third the tongue. .. .

The town authorities reacted with a series of stern measures to halt the spreading panic. They ordered the tolling of the bells to cease. They outlawed the wearing of black clothing. They forbade the gathering of more than two people at a funeral, or any display of grief in public. And to placate the angry God who had brought this affliction, they banned all work after noon on Saturdays, all gambling and swearing, and they demanded that everyone living in sin get married immediately. Li Muisis [an abbot of Tournai]recorded happily that the number of marriages increased considerably,profanity was no longer heard, and gambling declined so much that the makers of dice turned to making rosaries.

He also recorded that in this newly virtuous place 25,000 citizens died of the plague and were buried in large pits on the outskirts of the town.

-O. Friedrich
 
2008-06-02 02:44:22 PM
MBooda
You know who ELSE was from Austria Austrailia?

FTFY.

/pet peeve
 
2008-06-02 02:52:43 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: I've never seen it at my university, and I'm in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department. Our department was founded by Reid Bryson, a guy who completely disagrees with the consensus opinion on AGW. Most of the stories I hear are about scientists told to tone down the results of their AGW research for political reasons.

We need to be careful that scientific results which illustrate bad consequences for maintaining the status-quo aren't manipulated by those in power. You are looking at exactly one-half of the equation.

This is a terrific example of why it's pointless to argue with lay-people about this. "It was cold this spring, so AGW must be wrong! Ha, ha, those dumb scientists. I even heard they are wrong and stuff." Do you really expect me to respond to this?


To be fair, that you've never seen it at your university could be considered anecdotal as there's evidence out there that skeptics have been and continue to be discriminated against.

That being said, I'm definitely a truth is in the middle guy. My guess is that the actual scientists, being scientists, don't do a good job of marketing their data nor making it easily readible for the common person. Unfortunately, both sides of the political spectrum associated with this (the skeptics and the zealots) tend to do a very good job of marketing their views.

As for the last one - how long does the downward trend need to continue (how many years, to be specific) before one would call the current models busted? This isn't a flippant question by any means - I actually want to get additional viewpoints.
 
2008-06-02 02:55:15 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay Quote 2008-06-02 02:38:30 PM


I've never seen it at my university, and I'm in the Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences department. Our department was founded by Reid Bryson, a guy who completely disagrees with the consensus opinion on AGW. Most of the stories I hear are about scientists told to tone down the results of their AGW research for political reasons.


Well thats a canard. With more than 2 billion in the hopper going toward research around AGW and its consequences, you can safely bet any pressure is going in its favor - university officials love the green - money, that is. There have been reports of people getting fired because their departments were worried about a backlash from the liberal green community, including donors like barbara streisand. And there are older experts like Gray being pushed into retirement.

There are significant consequences to adopting things like cap and trade, which necessitates political action. The political steamroller, with its accompanying cult labels like "denialist" is designed to trivialize and reduce the opposition, which should raise alarms that the science is not sound. If it were, the argument would have more of the character of evolution threads, where substantial evidence and logic are applied, instead of hand waving in reference to a model that is not understood because it was jimmied to produce a desired result.

My favorite is "clouds are a feedback, not forcing, effect"
 
2008-06-02 03:06:39 PM
ronaprhys: To be fair, that you've never seen it at your university could be considered anecdotal as there's evidence out there that skeptics have been and continue to be discriminated against.

Well, of course it's anecdotal. But I don't exactly have poll-results or anything on hand. I didn't think we (jdmac and I) were having a rigorous discussion, considering his evidence consisted of simply saying "I heard somewhere that something happened".

ronaprhys: As for the last one - how long does the downward trend need to continue (how many years, to be specific) before one would call the current models busted? This isn't a flippant question by any means - I actually want to get additional viewpoints.

First of all, jdmac provided no data. All he said was "It seems a bit colder? I have even heard mention that the globe has not actually been warming for a couple years now?" I've heard several times that temperatures have trended downward - every time it was some regional data which, when you look at the global average temperature, reveals an increase in temperature. Until I get some confirmation about the data (not holding my breath), I'm going to assume that jdmac was providing hearsay about one of those "studies".

As for your question, if you want to see if observations support or bust AGW predictions, you have to look at more than a single year. The current question is whether we are in a multi-decadal oscillation or not - you need to look at a few decades of data in order to make that call. A single year where the temperature is steady or slightly down compared to the previous year won't appear all that significant if someone actually looks at the data. I would say a 30-year data set would be fairly conclusive, but that's a ballpark figure.
 
2008-06-02 03:14:44 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: Well, of course it's anecdotal. But I don't exactly have poll-results or anything on hand. I didn't think we (jdmac and I) were having a rigorous discussion, considering his evidence consisted of simply saying "I heard somewhere that something happened".

Then we're cool and on the same page, but I believe articles have even been linked to here on Fark that support that - though my guess is it's a minority issue.

First of all, jdmac provided no data. All he said was "It seems a bit colder? I have even heard mention that the globe has not actually been warming for a couple years now?" I've heard several times that temperatures have trended downward - every time it was some regional data which, when you look at the global average temperature, reveals an increase in temperature. Until I get some confirmation about the data (not holding my breath), I'm going to assume that jdmac was providing hearsay about one of those "studies".

As for your question, if you want to see if observations support or bust AGW predictions, you have to look at more than a single year. The current question is whether we are in a multi-decadal oscillation or not - you need to look at a few decades of data in order to make that call. A single year where the temperature is steady or slightly down compared to the previous year won't appear all that significant if someone actually looks at the data. I would say a 30-year data set would be fairly conclusive, but that's a ballpark figure.


I thought it was commonly accepted that this last winter or year was definitely colder for the planet than the one before. Not by much or anything, but definitely down on more than a regional scope.

Here's the problem I'd have with 30 years (though I can understand why that's a good answer scientifically) is that policy is being decided on a shorter term than that. So, if it turns out we are just in said oscillation, then it's possible that we'll be creating a policy that could cost billions, if not trillions, of dollars for something we didn't fully understand.

If not, we could also be spending the same amount for something we can't control - and if our gov't is any example, we'll spend the money so poorly and on the wrong things that the potential impact will be completely nullified anyway.

This is a problem facing those of us who can somewhat understand the science. And, from what I can tell, there's no good answer out there.
 
2008-06-02 03:20:39 PM
www.thesimpsonsquotes.com

Those whacky Australians, whaddya gonna do?
 
2008-06-02 03:23:13 PM
Savage Belief: MBooda
You know who ELSE was from Austria Austrailia?

FTFY.

/pet peeve


Rotsky?
 
2008-06-02 03:27:52 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2008-06-02 03:30:33 PM
ronaprhys: Then we're cool and on the same page, but I believe articles have even been linked to here on Fark that support that - though my guess is it's a minority issue.

That's racist.

I'm sure that scientists have been bribed, bullied, hired, and fired for research supporting or criticizing AGW depending on what their bosses wanted. What I take issue with is the notion that the government is somehow "fighting the power" against the big, bad scientists and their billions of dollars in research money. If the money really flows that easily, I'm being screwed. And so is everybody who goes to a conference, since one of the major issues raised at every conference is "where can I get money to research this?"


ronaprhys: I thought it was commonly accepted that this last winter or year was definitely colder for the planet than the one before. Not by much or anything, but definitely down on more than a regional scope.

I know that we broke records in WI with snowfall (though MN got screwed), and it was more brutal than any winter in my memory. But that is a single season. There is a huge difference between global average temperature and the temperature of a particular place, at a particular time, in a particular season. Global average temperature is essentially a measure of integrated energy - a particular season is ruled by forces on it's own length and time scales.

That said, people who say "but global warming causes more severe weather, so this is proof that it's real!" make me facepalm.

ronaprhys: Here's the problem I'd have with 30 years (though I can understand why that's a good answer scientifically) is that policy is being decided on a shorter term than that. So, if it turns out we are just in said oscillation, then it's possible that we'll be creating a policy that could cost billions, if not trillions, of dollars for something we didn't fully understand.

If not, we could also be spending the same amount for something we can't control - and if our gov't is any example, we'll spend the money so poorly and on the wrong things that the potential impact will be completely nullified anyway.

This is a problem facing those of us who can somewhat understand the science. And, from what I can tell, there's no good answer out there.



That is a policy issue. I don't have any problem with politicians arguing with each other over policy decisions based on scientific studies - they can banter back and forth about it until The Rapture for all I care. But they aren't doing that. Instead, politicians who gain the most out of maintaining the status-quo (read: most of them) just swift-boat the scientific findings. That helps nobody.
 
2008-06-02 03:32:39 PM
We should boycott them and stop buying kangaroo leather, even though it is so supple. Shiraz from the Barossa Valley --- well, I don't think we need to go that far. We should only curtail our imports of that heavenly vino if they start comparing us Deniers/Under-Alarmists to Hitler (but 10 times worse).
 
2008-06-02 03:36:44 PM
I'm sure articles like these do wonders to further promoting sound scientific debate around the Big Questions of our time. Just not in a way that's remotely constructive.

/Too lazy to read the comments...
 
2008-06-02 04:21:34 PM
Animatronik: Well thats a canard. With more than 2 billion in the hopper going toward research around AGW and its consequences, you can safely bet any pressure is going in its favor - university officials love the green - money, that is.

I'll never understand why so many people fall for this ridiculous argument. The idea that scientists are faking evidence for GW to get grant money is absurd conspiracy theory bullshiat, and doesn't even make sense - usually in universities climatology departments are lumped with geology departments, who get a huge amount of funding and research cash from mining and oil companies - wouldn't research contradicting GW be way more profitable?

There have been reports of people getting fired because their departments were worried about a backlash from the liberal green community, including donors like barbara streisand.

OK, now you're just being asinine. Once again, you think Barbara farking Streisand or a handful of greenies have more pull than oh, for example ExxonMobil, the world's largest company by revenue?
 
2008-06-02 04:22:23 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: I'm sure that scientists have been bribed, bullied, hired, and fired for research supporting or criticizing AGW depending on what their bosses wanted. What I take issue with is the notion that the government is somehow "fighting the power" against the big, bad scientists and their billions of dollars in research money. If the money really flows that easily, I'm being screwed. And so is everybody who goes to a conference, since one of the major issues raised at every conference is "where can I get money to research this?"

If someone said government is doing anything other than serving it's own interests, I'd laugh at them. I don't believe it's government fighting, but we're on the same page that there's manipulation of scientists being done to some extent on both sides of the fences.


I know that we broke records in WI with snowfall (though MN got screwed), and it was more brutal than any winter in my memory. But that is a single season. There is a huge difference between global average temperature and the temperature of a particular place, at a particular time, in a particular season. Global average temperature is essentially a measure of integrated energy - a particular season is ruled by forces on it's own length and time scales.

Agreed - but I thought I had heard it was globally lower this last year. I don't have a source - was hoping you might since you seem to be involved in the arena more than I am.

That said, people who say "but global warming causes more severe weather, so this is proof that it's real!" make me facepalm.

Agreed - an idiot is still an idiot, regardless of the side of the fence they're on.

That is a policy issue. I don't have any problem with politicians arguing with each other over policy decisions based on scientific studies - they can banter back and forth about it until The Rapture for all I care. But they aren't doing that. Instead, politicians who gain the most out of maintaining the status-quo (read: most of them) just swift-boat the scientific findings. That helps nobody.

I do and I don't. I agree that the people should be making the decisions based on what they know. However, unfortunately, a very vocal group of people are calling for policy changes and pointing to the immediacy of the "threat". (cough ALGORE cough). That's what I worry about. Do we actually have a large enough and concrete enough dataset to make accurate predictions with a high degree of reliability. Can those models clearly demonstrate that doing X will lead to Y with the sort of certainty that would make it worth it to have a policy discussion.

Right now I'm not so sure.

To be fair, I'm personally doing what I can to be at least somewhat green - as long as it makes financial sense or the cost isn't too bad.
 
2008-06-02 04:38:53 PM
steamingpile: fatassbastard: Al Gore: "THE WORLD'S GONNA END IN 10 YEARS CUZ OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!"

Rush Limbaugh: "IT'S ALL JUNK SCIENCE!!! THERE IS NO HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING!!!"

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Here's a suggestion: Get your science from actual scientists instead of blowhard politicians and radio talk show hosts.

Thats what most think as well but if you dont accept global warming as being caused solely by man then you are a drooling, vapid, moron who cant realize man is the real evil.


Steaming Pile, you are a sheep. Do some research, look up the facts yourself. The clue you've been given, if you have any sense at all, is the statement by Al, "The debate is over, there is a concensus...". Is there? No. He's a liar. He is a politician. He is making tens of millions off this scam, AND YOU BOUGHT IT! Ha! The joke is on YOU!
 
2008-06-02 04:39:08 PM
ronaprhys: Agreed - but I thought I had heard it was globally lower this last year. I don't have a source - was hoping you might since you seem to be involved in the arena more than I am.

Someone farther up the thread posted a graph (sans source) showing global average temperature stagnating over the last few years, and dropping for 2008 in particular. If that's the case, then so be it. AGW doesn't require that every year be incrementally warmer than the year which comes before - it goes back to whether there is evidence of an event or a trend. The plot provided was cleverly chosen to show a downward-trend over a very small portion of the whole graph. Start a few years earlier, and the trend is upward.

There are climate events (e.g. ENSO) which need to be taken into account. It's very easy to take an event and try to extrapolate a trend out of it. Unfortunately, there is nothing scientific about doing so.

ronaprhys (cont.): I do and I don't. I agree that the people should be making the decisions based on what they know. However, unfortunately, a very vocal group of people are calling for policy changes and pointing to the immediacy of the "threat". (cough ALGORE cough). That's what I worry about. Do we actually have a large enough and concrete enough dataset to make accurate predictions with a high degree of reliability.

Depends on what you are trying to predict. Weather models don't predict the same things that climate models are made to predict, and there is always uncertainty.

ronaprhys (cont.): Can those models clearly demonstrate that doing X will lead to Y with the sort of certainty that would make it worth it to have a policy discussion.

You have to be careful about what X and Y are. If X is "increase CO2" and Y is "increase global average temperature", I would say yes. Also, if X were "increase global average temperature" and Y were "sea level rise", I would also say yes.

But if X were "double CO2" and Y were "*C increase in global average temperature/rainfall/ice-storm threat/number of hurricanes/etc." I would say no. Numbers from a model are good evidence of the possible effect of X on Y, but they are by no means observations.

So that is what it basically comes down to. Is the fact that models predict some increase in global average temperature with rising CO2 enough evidence to motivate political action? Again, that is a policy decision. There is a cost-benefit analysis that should be done (I know Dr. Kerry Emanuel uses a cost-benefit approach to argue against building along the coast in a hurricane zone from a risk-subsidization perspective), and there is the question of how our resources can best be put to use. Both of those things need information from climatology, but neither of them actually have anything (literally) to do with climatology.
 
2008-06-02 04:47:03 PM
LouDobbsAwaaaay: You have to be careful about what X and Y are. If X is "increase CO2" and Y is "increase global average temperature", I would say yes. Also, if X were "increase global average temperature" and Y were "sea level rise", I would also say yes.

But if X were "double CO2" and Y were "*C increase in global average temperature/rainfall/ice-storm threat/number of hurricanes/etc." I would say no. Numbers from a model are good evidence of the possible effect of X on Y, but they are by no means observations.

So that is what it basically comes down to. Is the fact that models predict some increase in global average temperature with rising CO2 enough evidence to motivate political action? Again, that is a policy decision. There is a cost-benefit analysis that should be done (I know Dr. Kerry Emanuel uses a cost-benefit approach to argue against building along the coast in a hurricane zone from a risk-subsidization perspective), and there is the question of how our resources can best be put to use. Both of those things need information from climatology, but neither of them actually have anything (literally) to do with climatology.


That's a good summation of the problem. I can understand the predictive problems (incredibly complex systems, etc) inherent. I'm also a big fan of doing the CBA and moving forward. However, to do so requires some sort of decent predictability if one wants to be accurate. So right now it goes back to the three possibilities
1 - do something that's ineffective (due to mismanagement, incompetence, flaws in the design), spend lots of money, still have bad outcome
2 - do something that's ineffective (due to mismanagement, incompetence, flaws in the design), spend lots of money, have good outcome that would've occurred anyway
3 - do something that's actually effective, spend lots of money, still have good outcome.
 
2008-06-02 04:47:33 PM
Gunther: Animatronik: Well thats a canard. With more than 2 billion in the hopper going toward research around AGW and its consequences, you can safely bet any pressure is going in its favor - university officials love the green - money, that is.

I'll never understand why so many people fall for this ridiculous argument. The idea that scientists are faking evidence for GW to get grant money is absurd conspiracy theory bullshiat, and doesn't even make sense - usually in universities climatology departments are lumped with geology departments, who get a huge amount of funding and research cash from mining and oil companies - wouldn't research contradicting GW be way more profitable?

There have been reports of people getting fired because their departments were worried about a backlash from the liberal green community, including donors like barbara streisand.

OK, now you're just being asinine. Once again, you think Barbara farking Streisand or a handful of greenies have more pull than oh, for example ExxonMobil, the world's largest company by revenue?


Hey Moron, the only problem you have left is the last ice-age of 2007-2008 that capped off cooling trend for the last several years (see graph anywhere, if you care to look), oh, and the name change from global warming to "climate change", and also, you have a MORON for your religion named Al Gore, the biggest liar in the history of mankind, and one more thing, his movie which is so full of bullshiat, only idiots wouldn't be aware of them. What a dumb-ass.
 
2008-06-02 04:52:24 PM
For an inch of coast line, AlGore suggests we starve off 10s if not 100s of millions of people this millennium.
 
2008-06-02 05:01:21 PM
fatassbastard: Al Gore: "THE WORLD'S GONNA END IN 10 YEARS CUZ OF GLOBAL WARMING!!!"

Rush Limbaugh: "IT'S ALL JUNK SCIENCE!!! THERE IS NO HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL WARMING!!!"

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Here's a suggestion: Get your science from actual scientists instead of blowhard politicians and radio talk show hosts.


And most of the scientists I hear about agree on two points: There is global warming, and there isn't one thing we can do about it, cause it's occurring naturally.
 
2008-06-02 05:04:09 PM
i278.photobucket.com

i278.photobucket.com

i278.photobucket.com
 
2008-06-02 08:21:08 PM
JDerek: Funny how I never heard this guy speak up when some of his "brethren" were actually molesting kids.

Good point. I guess we know where the "churches" prioties lie.
 
2008-06-03 05:44:24 PM
Fluzing: Commander Lysdexic: She crawled out the house after 7 offspring
And she yelled to the cops "Yo, I can't speak Australian"
But I'm still pimping, I got three more lairs,
so come and party with me, in my second Cellair.

Austria, moran.


AHahha. you fail at Fark.com memes.

LAST POST!
 
Displayed 38 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report