Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 Next
Comments 61001 to 61050:
-
John Hartz at 10:09 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
@Dana: Have you forwarded this and your prior article to Maddow?Response:[dana1981] Yes, both
-
Phil at 10:01 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
jzk @16 This may make interesting reading. The suggestion is that Peak Oil (resource exhaustion) will give rise to wild fluctuations in price - which, I would suggest, is not a good backdrop for a stable economy in which to develop alternatives. -
Daniel J. Andrews at 09:58 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
There's an article...in Nature magazine, a very liberal publication, or publication on your side,
Interesting. Science journals are liberal publications, and Nature is a *very* liberal publication. Must be all those articles on stem cells, evolution, warming, and closer geographical proximity (than the U.S.) to some suspect socialist/communist countries. Since Nature (and other science journals that reflect reality) is "liberal" that allows him to dismiss anything in science journals as something from the liberals (unless it is something he agrees with, of course, in which case he'll wave it around for all to see). It is nice though that he recognizes we're on the side of science, except he doesn't know what science is. Sigh. Reality...still has a liberal bias apparently. Might be fun to collect Inhofe quotes/ideas. Science journals are liberal publications. Global warming can't be happening because fixing it would be too expensive. It can't be happening because God said there'd always be a spring, summer, winter, fall (wonder what happened during the flood? Or in tropical countries? Or what happens when spring floods, summer bakes, winter washes away the soil)? Religion has no business in science...except when global warming can't happen because God said it won't. The job of brain-washing the kids falls to elected officials, not unelected bureaucrats. ;) Well, maybe that one is a strawman argument, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I heard him talk about it. -
Bob Lacatena at 09:16 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
"...this is my goal to stop, that is unelected bureaucrats taking positions, contrary to the elected officials in brainwashing our kids."
Except neither should be setting curriculum, let alone brainwashing. In every other subject the material and curriculum are established by educators, authors, and the academics working in the field. No one in government, elected or appointed, decides what is taught in math, literature, history or anything else. Truth is not established by democracy. We don't vote on the truth. Truth is not defined in elections by the opinion of the majority. So why does Inhofe think he has any right to determine what science, climate science, is taught in schools? Or the EPA? Where's his evidence that any such direction came from the EPA, for that matter? It's simple. What do the scientists say? What do people doing research and teaching at higher level educational institutions say? That's what should be taught. So what are they saying and teaching, Inhofe? Gee, I wonder. -
jzk at 09:07 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Philippe@14, Why is waiting for resource exhaustion a bad way to accomplish a switch to new energy sources (Aside from AGW implications)? Resource exhaustion causes the cost of the resource to increase, creating incentive to develop alternative technology. And, the resource will not become exhausted overnight. It will slowly become more and more scarce. That gives alternative energy sources time to be developed and phased in. Of course, if using the original resource will cause mass extinction and all the water on the planet to vaporize, then resource exhaustion is the least of our worries. -
Trent1492 at 08:54 AM on 21 March 2012Phil Jones - Warming Since 1995 is now Statistically Significant
I think it might be a good idea to update the Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995? article with the 2010 story. -
jimb at 08:06 AM on 21 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
re 15- here are a couple of links to the Saskatchewan oil sands/Bakken field. The one from the Pembina Institute is the most thorough (pubs.pembina.org/reports/sask-carbon-copy-report.pdf)- a second one from the Manitoba government outlines the possibilities of Bakken field exploitation in southeastern Saskatchewan (http://www.manitoba.ca/iem/mrd/geo/willistontgi/downloads/kreis_et_al_bakken-torquay_paper.pdf) The 'we' only refers to those who may have to re-evaluate the hope that the history of the Saskatchewan government as referred to by Alces @ 10 would keep that province from following Alberta's path once economic factors . Sorry that my computer skills are not up to providing direct links. Hope these help.Response:[DB] Hot-linked URLs.
-
funglestrumpet at 07:57 AM on 21 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
Thanks for a very thought provoking article. It has long been a thought of mine that those living in nations who can be seen to have done least to combat climate change are going to face the wrath of other nations when the public eventually cottens on to just how deep the ungazi is. Recompence will be the minimum demand, I suspect. In particular, I am very glad that as of this moment, none of the funglestrumpet line will be living in or anywhere near the good old U.S. of A. when that time comes. [snip] Can't see anyone on either side of the great divide who will take the action on climate change so urgenty needed.Moderator Response: [Sph] Political rant in violation of the comments policy snipped. -
Composer99 at 07:22 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
IMO SirNubWub's claims fall even from a libertarian perspective on rights. I note that all humans are possessed of certain rights to person & property which, I am led to believe, liberatians assert are not to be violated by others (least of all governments). However, it is fairly clear that climate change, given its anthropogenic origins, violates the person and property rights of those who are subject to predicted and actualized negative impacts - Texas ranchers & farmers subject to drought, Pakistani farmers inundated in floods, heat wave deaths in Moscow, and the like. So anyone contributing to climate change is contributing to an illegitimate violation of others' inalienable rights. As far as I know, most libertarians are not opposed to government action to defend people's rights to person & property (e.g. the "nightwatchman state") - even though such defence will of necessity abridge rights somewhere down the line. What makes the property/person rights of Texas ranchers, Pakistani farmers, Tuvaluan property owners, &c less valid than those of gasoline buyers? Finally, it should be noted that pricing carbon and regulating emissions is effectively similar to the special taxes & regulations levied on alcohol & tobacco products. My freedom of action to drink alcoholic beverages, smoke tobacco products, or consume fossil fuels, is subject to abridgement where such freedom of action would violate others' rights to person & property. From a libertarian perspective I do not see any reasonable objection I could make to such abridgement. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:14 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
One thing is certain: the large scale industrial use of fossil fuels will be eradicated from this world in the future. How it happens and how difficult it is to cope with is up to humans. There is a wide variety of ways to accomplish it with minimal pain, but no way to do it entirely pain free. Some ways to do it could be extremely painful, like waiting for resource exhaustion without developing alternatives. In fact, it is obvious that this would be the worst possible way. Any way to do it with minimal pain implies a gradual transition and has to be started as early as possible. It is possible, even likely that the transition can be completed before significant resource exhaustion sets in. This can be regarded as a problem only by the few drawing large profits from FF use, who are not willing to change and would like to extract every last drop of profit from their activity. Their opinion should be be ignored, as their input in this whole debate is only self-serving. These are plain and self evident truths that no level of denial can alter. -
John Hartz at 07:10 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
“Despite claims to the contrary, planetary sh*t does happen” Source: “Climate, Science, and Religion” by Bill Chameides, The Greengrok Blog, Scientific American, Mar 19, 2012 This hard-hitting commentary was prompted by Inhofe’s new book. -
scaddenp at 07:03 AM on 21 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
RonManley, you obviously believe this despite the science saying otherwise. What is the source of such a belief. Though the statement "Those who are alive in 5000 years time will look back on our period as the age of profligacy" is undoubtedly true. Hard to imagine any fossil fuel still around so I hope they get fusion sorted by then. -
scaddenp at 07:00 AM on 21 March 2012Roy Spencer's Bad Economics
Makes no nukes look bad doesnt it? Does the spreadsheet take off the subsidies? IEA estimates fossil fuel subsidies at 409 billion per year. Furthermore, the cost of petroleum and to lesser extent coal will rise no matter what because of production constraint so you cant park all of that cost at door of fossil fuel reduction. You also look at the full analysis done by economists instead of a spreadsheet (eg Nordhaus or Stern). -
DSL at 06:34 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
SirNubWub, I've heard "free market" proponents say that air as a commodity is fair game (I think one even claims it in the documentary The Corporation. A few decades ago, the privatization of water would have seemed ridiculous. Bechtel doesn't think so. You're right, though: regulation limits economy. It doesn't bound economy, though. It might stretch economic growth temporally, or it might reorganize the existing structure of production. It might prevent certain forms of production and products. Eventually, all the recoverable FF carbon in the ground will be recovered. Will it happen as fast as possible, with no thought for the future (none possible in the unregulated free market -- government is, by definition, the vision, whether it is government by democracy, government by CEO, or government by direct capitalist), suspending 10-12 billion people into an econo-chronotope (historical moment) that cannot support their weight? Will the free marketers like Inhofe then say, "Well, it's not our fault! We just made stuff. We didn't force people to buy it." Therein the great lie. A libertarian's analysis is as good as the information the libertarian chooses to freely accept. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:05 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
John, you're probably right, although someone by that screen name has posted here before. On other venues I found trying to discuss anything with the libertarian types and try to keep it grounded in reality was indeed a futile exercise. It is always to be hoped that one could prove otherwise. -
Rob Painting at 06:00 AM on 21 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Monckton speaking at the Kroc Institute Theatre - how apt. -
caerbannog at 05:55 AM on 21 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Just found out that "Lord" Monckton will be appearing here in San Diego on the 24th. Details here: http://octeapartyblog.com/event/lord-monckton-at-university-of-san-diego/ Monckton will be giving a presentation at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice Theatre, 5998 Acala Park, University of San Diego, Saturday Mar 24 at 7PM. A California Assemblyman from east San Diego County (our own "cultural" outback) will be MC'ing the event. Of course, I don't expect that folks from Down Under will be likely to pop by ;) ;), but if anyone here knows any San Diego area scientists (like folks at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography -- SIO is just a few minutes from USD) who might be interested in "crashing Monckton's party", please pass this along to them Rather short notice, but this event is being promoted to Tea-Partiers and right-wing GOP types here (with very little notice being given to the general public). New info: Pre-registration for the event is available here. -
John Hartz at 05:51 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
@Philippe Chantreau: I suspect that SirNubwub is just a drive-by blogger who will not be back to engage us in any meaningful conversation. His post suggests to me that he is a die-hard Libertarian whose political ideology rules supreme. If so, he does not subscribe to the concept of the "common good." Attempting to discuss the realities of manmade climate change with someone of this ilk is an exercise in futitlity. -
Composer99 at 05:45 AM on 21 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Hopefully on topic for published research: A bistable organic-rich atmosphere on the Neoarchaean Earth (Zerkle et al 2012) published last week in Nature Geoscience on the ancient (~2.5 billion years ago) Earth atmosphere. -
r.pauli at 05:25 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
(language warning) It seems rather silly to hear both scientific and economic high risk language coming from a US Senator. Inhofe seems to be pissing directly into the wind and yet insists on standing upwind and telling us it's rain, -
Philippe Chantreau at 05:11 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
On another note, it is worth noting that speculation affects energy prices in ways more significant than regulations, although much more unpredictable. Speculation can make the price of the oil barrel vary on scales that make regulation costs look like child play. By NubWub's reasoning, speculation will then "affect the production of food and other business enterprises." It will also "affect how people commute to work and take vacations." There is no doubt that it actually does that, and it does it now, as it is not, like emission regulation, something proposed for the future. I am sure that SirNubWub's concern on individual freedoms then must imply some strong, current action against speculation, the terrible speculation that is unduly affecting so many areas of our lives, to the point of limiting choices for individuals. I also note the "some people have argued" section in post #1 (end of 2nd paragraph), leading to the really scary stuff, is not accompanied by any quote of reference. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:56 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
SirNubWub's mumbo-jumbo seems carefully chosen to scare, but is only loosely related to any reality: The this and that we are "allowed" to do, as if some gestapo type of body is going to monitor you and come knock on your door in the night if you're not compliant; it makes for splendid emotional reactions in the audience, no doubt. In my experience, that kind of talk is most often associated with mind manipulation attempts. It's nonsense and indicates SirNubWub is the one mired in misunderstanding. Smart grids detect use and react accordingly. One is still free to run the oven and a pressure washer at 3 am if he choses to do so, it won't affect anything other than his reputation with neighbors. Regulations will not dictate the size of the TV one can buy. It may very well make that TV more expensive, by including in its price costs that are currently externalized. Perhaps NubWub's argument is that, in effect it will make it unaffordable, thereby "dictating" that it is not "allowed." That is so much of a stretch that I might as well say I am not "allowed" to buy a yacht or a 12 room mansion. I certainly can't afford either one of them. We all pay at some point or another for externalized costs. Sometimes it's immediate: SUV drivers increase demand by using more gas than efficient car drivers for the same mileage. By increasing demand, they force prices up, but pay the same at the pump as efficient car drivers. So they externalize some of their costs (that of higher demand for the commodity) to efficient car drivers. That happens in the here and now. Some costs are externalized in much more diluted ways. Some seem to believe externalizing costs is OK, as long as they are diluted enough that someone else, either in time or space, will have to deal with it. I'm sure the ones who will have to deal with it would disagree. The precious "freedoms" so vociferously touted by a certain ideology is nothing but that of externalizing costs to others. -
John Hartz at 04:44 AM on 21 March 2012Oceans Acidifying Faster Today Than in Past 300 Million Years
Suggested reading: “In Fight to Save Coral Reefs, Finding Strategies that Work” posted by Dusti Becker, Yale Environment 360, Mar 13, 2012 In four decades as a marine biologist, Nancy Knowlton has played a key role in documenting the biodiversity of coral reefs and the threats they increasingly face. In an interview with Yale Environment 360, she assesses the state of the world’s corals and highlights conservation projects that offer hope of saving these irreplaceable ecosystems. To access this informative article, click here . -
mohyla103 at 04:41 AM on 21 March 2012It's not bad
John Hartz ...and also with you. ;) -
jimspy at 04:17 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
I was surprised that Rachel did not mention the Berkeley study. I had emailed her several months ago about it, emphasizing that it was a vindication of ClimateGate, a confirmation of Global Warming, AND a defeat of the Koch Brothers - kind of a Climate Change hat trick. I thought the last one especially would get her attention, and she might do a story on it. I at least thought she would use it against Inhofe - "OK, maybe you don't trust the EPA, but how about the Koch Brothers, are they trustworthy?" Alas, I guess she doesn't read all her emails after all. -
Albatross at 04:06 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
SirNubwub, This thread is about Inhofe making misleading and fallacious arguments. Going by your odd comment it seems fair to say then that you endorse Inhofe's myths and misinformation? If not, please let us know which of his myths you do not agree with. Thanks. -
jimb at 03:42 AM on 21 March 2012An Open Letter to the Future
@10 Alces Now that Saskatchewan has found oil/oilsands in the north and shale gas in the south, we may have to re-evaluate.Moderator Response: [JH] Please provide source material and explain who "we" are and what is to be re-evaluated. -
John Hartz at 03:38 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
SirNubwub: "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself." FDR -
jimb at 03:35 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
SirNubWub What is even scarier is that no one , elected or unelected, will have the political will to make the changes that are needed to keep warming to 2C or less. -
Doc Snow at 03:34 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
Also, to advocate for certain measures (for any purpose)--which is what I would understand as being the meaning of "we should" do this or that--is quite different from "regulation." Of course transforming our energy economy into a susatainable one will change lives. But so did public health measures--which also involved some share of regulation. It seems perverse to assume that, simply because regulation may be required to achieve some end, therefore the real end is in fact regulation. -
michael sweet at 03:10 AM on 21 March 2012It's too hard
Eric: the CATO Institute is a right wing canned research foundation owned by the Koch brothers. You need to start citing peer reviewed articles, not Koch propaganda. I can see why you are so uninformed about so many different subjects. As far as developing economies (which are OT on this thread), if there is widespread drought caused by AGW there will be widespread disruption and starvation. Try to find some reliable sources to refer to instead of canned research. -
Doc Snow at 03:08 AM on 21 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Love it!--and would love to hear about that sometime, too. -
SirNubwub at 03:07 AM on 21 March 2012Inhofe's Myths on Maddow
The essay here says that you do not know what "regulate life" means. I hope you are not serious when you say you think it means regulating breathing. I hope you are just being sarcastic. "Regulate life" means that if you are really serious of really regulating carbon, you are affecting virtually all aspects of life, often to the point of regulating choices. Regulating energy use by transportation means that you affect the production of food and other business enterprises. Fuel prices affect how people commute to work and take vacations. Operating and regulating the "smart grid" to limit CO2 production means you have the technical ability to regulate when people choose to use certain appliances in their own homes and what temperature they choose to keep their homes. People have argued that to limit (regulate) CO2 we should limit the meat that we choose to eat, the types of light bulbs we choose to buy, the number of children we choose to have, the size of TVs that we are allowed to buy, the size of cars that we choose, how much vacation travel we are rationed (yes, all of these have been proposed). Someone a long time ago said that "the power to tax is the power to destroy", or in this case, the power to highly influence many personal choices we make in everyday life. The idea has been recently proposed in Scientific American that a more powerful UN or other world government body needs to be instituted to enforce CO2 regulations. Having unelected elites with such power is truly frightening.Response:[dana1981] By your definition all regulations "regulate life". For example, environmental regulations take away your choice to dump hazardous waste into public water ways. Also what "people have proposed" is irrelevant. What is relevant is what is being proposed in legislation considered by policymakers.
-
funglestrumpet at 02:43 AM on 21 March 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #11
Just a small ammendment to comment 7, above: Change the need to rate out of 10 the factual quality of the post being commented on from 'on each post' to the first comment and make it automatically added for each subsequent comment about the particular item under discussion. This should be a required item before the post can be displayed. -
andylee at 02:36 AM on 21 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Have a go - it's very easy to make the box (or cylinder) out of a large sheet of polystyrene foam usually sold as an external house wall insulator. I guess an optimal shape for the box or cylinder would be a trapezoidal prism or truncated cone with outwardly sloping sides covered in aluminium foil that would also bounce out any laterally incoming incident IR. Instead of my wok, a polished aluminized satellite dish placed at the bottom should really get the temperature down at the focus - perhaps even more than 20C below ambient. On a still clear night, the cooled air in the box would be retained, but if there is a slight breeze then perhaps an IR-transparent version of cling film could be used as a lid. Keep the focus out of sight from any other external objects. For really optimal performance, add a CO2 scrubber! :-) However, the wok served well as a proof of concept. Might be too late to patent it now, but it was fun. Also a great experiment to teach kids about radiation and energy balance. How can it make ice without electricity when the temperature is well above freezing point? One could try pumping in some CO2 to see what effect it would have at different concentrations. I also made a very scary death-ray out of a 1.2m diameter satellite dish... but that's another story! :) -
Jim Eager at 01:51 AM on 21 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
The "Carbonic Acid Gas" phrase reminds of the half-wit on one forum who tried to argue that Tyndel did *not* detect the radiative nature of CO2, but that of carbonic acid. Yes, Virginia, science-deniers really are that dense and/or self-deluded. -
John Hartz at 01:20 AM on 21 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103: One out of twelve of the Apostles was a "Doubting Thomas." May the Force be with you. -
caerbannog at 01:16 AM on 21 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
Apologies for the OT post here -- but I just found out that "Lord" Monckton will be appearing here in San Diego on the 24th. Details here: http://octeapartyblog.com/event/lord-monckton-at-university-of-san-diego/ Monckton will be giving a presentation at the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice Theatre, 5998 Acala Park, University of San Diego, Saturday Mar 24 at 7PM. A California Assemblyman from east San Diego County (our own "cultural" outback) will be MC'ing the event. Of course, I don't expect that folks from Down Under will be likely to pop by ;) ;), but if anyone here knows any San Diego area scientists (like folks at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography -- SIO is just a few minutes from USD) who might be interested in "crashing Monckton's party", please pass this along to them Rather short notice, but this event is being promoted to Tea-Partiers and right-wing GOP types here (with very little notice being given to the general public). Like I said, apologies for the OT post here -- this may not be something that genuine scientists would want to bother with, but I thought I'd try to get the word out anyway.Moderator Response: [JH] For future reference, consider the comment thread of the most recent SkS Weekly Digest to be an "Open Thread" for purposes of posting of notices such as this. -
mohyla103 at 01:01 AM on 21 March 2012It's not bad
I see! So when a previous poster said that rain simply "runs off a glacier" this wasn't entirely true, and it's the drainage system within a glacier that can actually help prevent floods by slowing down the rate at which the rain can flow downhill. I guess this is what Tom Curtis was talking about. It makes a lot more sense now; thanks for the explanation mspelto! ====== A little aside here: While many may blindly accept the existence of AGW and accept any predictions of what the future holds for the planet simply because they hear about this in the mass media or pop culture, I cannot blindly accept it. This is not to say that I *will not* accept it, as has been implied here by at least one person. My position is simply that I won't accept something until I first see the evidence. Others telling me that there IS a mountain of evidence is still not going to sway me. I need to examine and try to understand it firsthand. That is why I am here on this site after all: to get deeper into the real evidence, all the while looking at it critically until I have a clear understanding of it one way or another. Skeptical Science really is an apt name for this website. As an analogy, many people believe aliens have visited Earth, but I'm not going to believe that just because others do, no matter what their number. The same applies to AGW and its predicted consequences. I'm not going to believe it simply because others do, no matter what their number. There is a difference though: there is actually a fairly solid scientific consensus on AGW and its consequences, as well as an abundance of published literature, so it is actually worth my time to go and exam the evidence. This seems like a reasonable position to me. I hope everyone on this board understands where I'm coming from now and if I ask any seemingly ignorant questions you will know my intentions are sincere. Thanks to those who have actually clarified things for me. You have not only helped me gain a deeper understanding, but the countless other "skeptical" visitors to this site who may be reading these posts. -
Bob Lacatena at 00:24 AM on 21 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129, I try not to waste too much time with people who are completely ignorant of the realities behind climate science, and yet saunter in to write long, authoritative, declarative speeches about how things really are and how dumb everyone else is. Other readers can take what they choose from what you say. To my mind it speaks volumes in identifying how entrenched the ignorance is among those who adamantly don't want to understand or recognize the climate science... and these are the same small, easily-manipulated minds that are such easy prey for predators like Inhofe. You would do well to turn your critical, un-accepting eye on Inhofe and his ilk, rather than on the climate scientists. -
Daniel Bailey at 23:45 PM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla103, please note that mspelto is a widely respected, practicing/publishing glaciologist who is kind enough to make himself available here at SkS from time to time. Some of the above links I gave you refer to his work. He is also the author of several posts here at SkS and at RealClimate. -
mspelto at 23:37 PM on 20 March 2012It's not bad
mohyla I admire your persistence. Glaciers that do receive large rain events are generally in temperate settings. Take southern Alaska. During such rain storms not only do we have the precipitation from rain, but this also causes quite a bit of snow melt. Thus, the actual water that will drain off per unit area can be greater than elsewhere. However, glacier plumbing systems filtering the water through the snowpack etc is slow. This spreads out the increased discharge and does not lead to a spike that triggers floods. If we take the Himalaya summer monsoon than rain only falls low on the glacier and again the drainage system is not as efficient as non-glaciated areas. -
Eric (skeptic) at 23:24 PM on 20 March 2012It's too hard
michael sweet, I appreciate your feedback in the other threads on ocean warning and developing economies. The developing economies do not need to build cars nor completely convert their economies from agriculture, but they can move a step up from subsistence agriculture and add considerable robustness to environmental catastrophe. Thailand is a good example of bouncing back after their floods. Industry can also include business process outsourcing that is non-energy-intensive. CATO published a well-balanced article http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa659.pdf pointing out some of the drawbacks and benefits to globalization. One drawback is rising wage inequality (that may be a persistent feature of capitalism). The main benefit is economic robustness which helps to tackle present and future problems including problems resulting from warming, especially in developing countries. -
Doc Snow at 23:06 PM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
I must say, that's a version I hadn't heard of! Very ingenious--it makes me want to 'try it at home.' I suppose that in 'throwing away the energy,' the important point is that you are locally decreasing entropy. -
CBDunkerson at 22:04 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129 wrote: "...the whole climate science appears to be at a similar stage where e.g. chemistry was with alchemy. From my perspective and considering its age this is in deed still true. Otherwise, why does research continue if we already know it all" So from this we must conclude either that: all research in the field of chemistry has ceased or you are making a blatantly irrational argument. I wonder which it could be. -
JMurphy at 21:02 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129 wrote : "...the whole climate science appears to be at a similar stage where e.g. chemistry was with alchemy. From my perspective and considering its age this is in deed still true. Otherwise, why does research continue if we already know it all, and why do the predictions become revised or outdated so fast?" Could you substantiate that a bit further by telling how old you think "climate science" is, and how old it would have to 'become' before you would accept it in the same you can accept Evolution or the prevailing Cosmological Model, for example ? (That's assuming you do actually accept them in some way ?) By the way, neither of the latter can or have actually been 'proved' - that is not how science works, as explained by the letter from 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences : For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5bn years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14bn years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today's organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong. Climate change now falls into this category: there is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend. What are your arguments against that statement ? West129 also wrote : "...I pointed at the two factions of the present while you point at the scientific battle between two camps in the past. That past battle isn't over. As you well know, the center of the universe was or is the earth. But that merely depended what point one picked as a reference. Believe it or not, now science tells us we are wrong again and our universe isn't the center either. Also, may I remind you, by “scientific consensus” the earth was declared to be flat much like what climatologists attempt with AGW-CO2. History tells us not to swallow any proclaimed axiom or rally behind a science that appears to be more destructive than the CO2 itself." Historical arguments/controversies about the Earth's place in the universe or its shape had/have nothing to do with science (if you can even call it that) and everything to do with religion. When rational investigation had taken place into those questions, they came to the conclusions that later scientific investigations 'proved'. See the 'battle' between Geocentrism and Heliocentric at the Wikipedia page, where you will see that both systems had merits and had been debated for many centuries even up to the 17th/18th Centuries. You can read about the Myth of the Flat Earth at another Wikipedia page. Ultimately, in both cases it was science which prevailed, as it does with regard to the Theory of AGW - unless, of course, you know of any science which says otherwise ? And do you have any further information about your belief about "a science that appears to be more destructive than the CO2 itself" ? What does that mean ? -
Ari Jokimäki at 20:55 PM on 20 March 2012New research from last week 11/2012
I guess I could have indicated more on the content of the classic but I thought I'd surprise you. :) -
Dick Veldkamp at 20:41 PM on 20 March 2012The Big Picture (2010 version)
Excellent summary of the issue! I found a typo you may want to fix: "there is a there is a" (under 'There are legitimate unsolved questions"). -
andylee at 20:21 PM on 20 March 2012The History of Climate Science - William Charles Wells
Thanks Doc, I enjoyed this, particularly where he described what I know as a "Cold Collector". I didn't know that the idea was so old. I made one once about 15 years ago, out of a large metal wok and 5-sided cubic polystyrene box with thick walls open to the sky. I put the wok in the bottom of the box, and suspended a jar of water roughly where the wok focus was and left it overnight in the garden away from any overlooking objects. The outside temp was around 8C, but the water inside had frozen solid by morning. Most impressive. Free ice without a fridge! The International Space Station uses something similar to regulate heat, but I'm wondering if a cold collector could be scaled up and used to radiate Earth's excess heat. Use a heat exchanger to concentrate energy at a focus to radiate. The scale required would be quite unimaginable though. It could perhaps replace powerstation cooling towers that affect climate, and also be used for radio astronomy at the same time. Still seems such a shame to throw away energy! -
Doug Hutcheson at 20:12 PM on 20 March 2012Rachel Maddow Debunks Climategate Myths Using Skeptical Science
West129 @ 35, you say:History tells us not to swallow any proclaimed axiom
Surely, history tells us not to accept anything uncritically, but to confirm our theories with evidence, evidence, evidence. Then you say:or rally behind a science that appears to be more destructive than the CO2 itself.
I take this to mean that you would reject a science which gave you answers you didn't like? Clearly, science is not destructive in and of itself: it is merely enquiry and understanding. CO2 is not destructive in and of itself, but the result of adding too much to our atmosphere looks like being destructive of ecosystems we value. Thus, it would be correct to say that failing to act upon the warnings science is giving us is what would result in destruction, not the science itself. What we know (scientific learning) does not matter; what matters is what we do (public policy) with what we know. You may be willing to proceed through life ignoring the best available advice, but I hope our political leaders will follow a more prudent course. For the same reason, I buy insurance for my home and my car, even though I consider the risk of loss to be low. The future cost of governments acting as though there is no problem and being wrong is unimaginable.
Prev 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 Next
