Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 Next
Comments 92851 to 92900:
-
Kevin Hood at 16:21 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
dhogaza I agree the grassroots effort thus far is a patchwork thus far. But I also think there is a potential for sweeping change at the municipal and possibly the state level. You make a good point about State's rights. There's always federal-state tension, but I agree that the strength of the bonds are going to be tested to new degrees soon. While I hear your frustration with nothing getting done, I am not sure that nothing is worse than passing cap-and-trade. deFazio's observations make it seem that cap-and-trade might simply give an illusion of progress where none has been made. It might be better to know nothing has been done. I also have a powerful skepticism as to using the same free-market/profiteering mechanisms that tanked the U.S. economy - and contributed mightily to the current climate change plight - for resolving the situation. I favor a carbon tax, preferrably an increasingly punitive one over time, where the proceeds go to renewable energy and efficiency efforts. Of course, the word "tax" is considered a death knell to any proposition - but I think that that paradigm is worth challenging. At least you have progressively idealistic representatives in Oregon. Here in Alaska our politicians would drill through their grandmother's graves to get a drop of oil. -
dhogaza at 15:47 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Here's a good article as to why Cap-and-Trade is a Bad Idea by a US Congressional Representative (Peter deFazio, Democrat out of Oregon).
I'm from Oregon, and I like DeFazio, but the problem is that he's wrong in the sense that doing *nothing* is definitely worse than Cap and Trade. And he has never offered an alternative that has had any chance of passing. His idealism also led to him voting against the health care reform law. Sorry, Peter, extending coverage to more people is better than sitting on our ass and being disappointed that the law didn't legislate Nirvana (it's an easier argument for him because the Oregon Health Care plan already provides basic coverage for everyone in the state, not as good as [say] Costa Rica, but better than any state other than perhaps MA (but we passed our law years earlier). So his stance wasn't hurting oregonians, necessarily - just red state poor people. -
dhogaza at 15:44 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Spare me the discussion of how individual households represent only a miniscule part of the carbon emission equation - I get that. But members of these same households are those who work in industry and who have the mouths that require much agriculture and consequent transportation. Can we not push for reform/minimizing carbon footprints at our work?
Etc ... Actually many states and municipalities have been taking action, for many years. It's patchwork, and not as effective as federal actions, and obviously those states with tards as governor (Wisconsin ...) aren't playing, but progress is being made. The really huge problem on the horizon will be the Right fighting States' Rights to do pollution control, with the Federal government forbidding such action. This fight's been going on for a couple of decades, at least, with the "States Rights über alles" extreme right insisting that it only applies to states that walk away from federal regulations on business, pollution, etc ... if states exceed federal law/regulation, "States Rights" flies right out the window for these people. -
dhogaza at 15:39 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
garythompson:This article seems to imply that if only Republicans were removed from office then Cap and Trade legislation would pass. But in 2009 and 2010, Democrats had a 'super majority' in both the House and the Senate and also occupied the Executive branch. They had 2 years to push through any legislation they deemed relevant and there wasn't anything Republicans could have done to stop them. Why did they not pass Cap and Trade?
Fillibuster in the Senate. Obama put health care reform first, and since there are always a couple of Dems from coal-producing states, getting 60 votes on cloture was problematic from the beginning. Your claim that "they had 2 years to push through any legislation they deemed relevant" is false regarding cap and trade, because of those Dems from coal-producing states. With MA voting in a Republican, even the dream of getting 60 votes disappeared. Yes, if there had been no Republicans in the Senate, cap and trade would've been passed (actually, more likely, a straight carbon tax). The same would've been true if the Senate followed the more democratic rules of the House. But the combination of the fillibuster and a very small number (<5) of Dems who are beholden to the fossil fuel industry ... there was no chance. -
Kevin Hood at 15:22 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
PS: Here's a good article as to why Cap-and-Trade is a Bad Idea by a US Congressional Representative (Peter deFazio, Democrat out of Oregon). -
Kevin Hood at 15:09 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Considering that many of us here appear to be enduring ruling bodies suffering cranial-rectal inversions, here's a simple question: Why not just ignore them? Can we not affect immense change from the ground up? Spare me the discussion of how individual households represent only a miniscule part of the carbon emission equation - I get that. But members of these same households are those who work in industry and who have the mouths that require much agriculture and consequent transportation. Can we not push for reform/minimizing carbon footprints at our work? Can we not forsake cars and use public transport or nonmotorized means? Can we not consume only locally grown food, plant trees, minimize our consumer purchases? And so on - in say, a million different ways? Or are we dependent on the governing bodies above to come around and approve meaningful action? The bumperstickers "Think Globally, Act Locally" and "If enough people lead, the leaders will follow" have at least a kernel of truth. -
garythompson at 15:08 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Nothing like a political post to get the juices flowing....I posted on here at #2 and then 24 hours later it's over 100. Seems we have a lot of political steam to vent. While I can see the reason to do this occasionally on this website, I have to agree with others on here that I hope this is not going to be the norm for this site. I love this website and continue to view it daily and hope it doesn't turn into a RC clone. I've learned more on this website about Climate Science than all the others put together and I applaud those who make this site possible. There was a question from my post that I hope to clarify here. #15 - MattJ "Your idealized picture of the American personality is quite false. Why, now I have to play the part of the man from Missouri and ask YOu for the evidence for your stance: don't tell me, show me that such is the attitude of the majority of Americans." This article seems to imply that if only Republicans were removed from office then Cap and Trade legislation would pass. But in 2009 and 2010, Democrats had a 'super majority' in both the House and the Senate and also occupied the Executive branch. They had 2 years to push through any legislation they deemed relevant and there wasn't anything Republicans could have done to stop them. Why did they not pass Cap and Trade? Because they knew the majority of people didn't feel it was necessary and this included many Democrats. If the country wanted this, then the politicians would have felt secure in passing it. They didn't. -
mothincarnate at 15:02 PM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
My votes in also! -
muoncounter at 14:46 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
"beginning immediately WW2 ended?" Hardly. Very little about US foreign policy before the 'fall' of the USSR had to do with exporting democracy. More to the point was a series of proxy wars. But what does this have to do with the topic of this thread, which is mired in the politics of here and now? -
TimTheToolMan at 14:45 PM on 14 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
This entire line of argument relies on model results that will become less reliable and relevent the further they get from the climate's component values against which they were built. The parametisation values will quickly move away from reality as new equilibriums are established in the real world for the case where CO2 was magically instantaneously removed from the atmosphere. Put another way, our models today have a snowballs chance in hell of being even vaguely accurate when moddeling climate heading towards a snowball earth. -
Susanne at 14:09 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
It's John's site and he can do what he likes with it. But it's of immense value to me and if this post heralds a change of direction towards discussing the politics of one nation - any nation - then I feel that its value will be reduced. The comments on this post, including my own, reinforce that feeling. Climate is a global matter. Politics is not. The political discussion in my country is just as brain-dead as the discussion in the US, but it's not the same discussion. I have a small chance of influencing the policy of my own government. I have none at all of influencing that of the US. This is one out of hundreds of posts. I sympathise with its content but to me as a regular reader and frequent referrer to Skeptical Science it really does seem out of place. I hope it's useful for you, meaning John and mods, to know that. Many thanks and best wishes.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion, as opinions matter and can make a difference. But there is a method to our madness. :) More science is coming, with yet more in the pipeline. -
Tom Curtis at 13:32 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd @97, you are apparently now equating the mere existence of laws with the rule of law. I am certain that the unholy trinity I mentioned had laws; but I am equally certain that they did not hold those laws to apply to themselves nor their enforcement agencies. I am even more certain they did not follow the procedures of the law in their various show trials, persecutions and progroms. Nor are they exceptional. Tyrants of all stripes have been as common as muck throughout history, and nearly all brought for a time, stability and discipline to their nation. (There are a few exceptions, such a Caligula, that did not.) Just because I mentioned only three examples does not mean I could not have found a hundred and more from just the 20th century alone - as you should know. Further, anarchy would have been much preferable in Cambodia during the reign of Pol Pot, and possibly better in Stalin's Russia and Mao's China. To the extent that it was not, it was only because they attained the least of the virtues of government, whilst trampling over the greater. Because Somalia is (possibly) worse than Burma to live in; does that leave any question that it would be preferable to either to live in a democracy with the rule of law? -
Tom Curtis at 13:15 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
dhogaza @96, it is apparently important to you that the US not be considered a democracy. That is fine, I consider it sufficiently undemocratic that its government has only a borderline claim to legitimacy. However, denying that it was one of the most democratic nations on Earth in the 19th century, let alone in the 1950's seems a very long stretch. Suggesting (which is necessary for your counter argument) that making the US more democratic in the 1860's or 1950's would somehow have avoided the somehow avoided the abuses of slavery, and of African American civil rights is, I think, an even longer stretch. There is no evidence that at those times, the views of politicians were significantly out of step with their constituents (quite the contrary). Of course, a full and consistent implementation of the rule of law would have avoided those particular abuses; but not lifted African Americans from the poverty imposed by years of prejudice. As to your assertions about the intentions of the founding fathers, they all assented to the claim that: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ..." That is a democratic principle if any, and if they fell short of their aspiration by not allowing the governed to indicate their consent or dissent because they were poor, or a woman, or black, that is to their shame (a shame from which we exonerate them due to the age in which they lived, but for which we would repudiate them if they expressed similar views now). What is more, Lincoln was quite clear about what sort of government was intended (if not fully effected in the US). It was democracy he fought for, so that "... this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." No matter that the US has often fallen short of aspiration; its aspiration has been democracy from its birth. Finally, campaign funding laws and poor education and media are far bigger threats to democracy in the US than any feature of its Constitution. -
Daniel Bailey at 13:14 PM on 14 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
Anyone interested in the topic of mass extinctions - or at least if we're to be part of one - may be interested in the comment at the other end of this link. Not yet time for "Auld Lang Syne", but the time neareth. The Yooper -
johnd at 13:08 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
muoncounter at 12:41 PM, by "recent", I take it to mean beginning immediately WW2 ended? -
johnd at 13:06 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM, I never expect that there will be 100% compliance with any assertions made, nor should ones overall view be characterised by the exceptions. To imagine that the three examples given controlled their regimes without any rules or laws ignores the realities. Can anyone imagine what would have happened if there was a total power vacuum and thus anarchy? Agreeing or not with such rules is a different matter. Who would propose that anarchy would have been preferable? Democracy should not be defined by the labels regimes apply to themselves, but rather by whether they meet the required criteria or not. Clearly a regime that imposes slavery or denies civil rights is one in name only. Perhaps you can offer an alternative to the "greater good/ greater number" that contravenes the concept and does not merely reword it. -
David Horton at 12:55 PM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Way to go John! And I totally agree with the nomination's notes about the large number of posts you manage to get up daily with little financial support and while doing a day job! The quality and quantity of the posts here is astounding for a basically one man operation (yes, I know behind every good man is a better woman), even taking into account the contributions from guest writers and moderators. Fingers crossed. -
dhogaza at 12:47 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
TomC: " There have been many democracies (or near approaches to democracy) which have been unequitable; which the history of slavery and the civil rights movement in the US should inform you of". Once again, the United States is not a democracy (and the Founders viewed the possibility with horror). During the antebellum era, US Senators weren't even elected by the citizens of their states. They were appointed by the state legislators. Many states had property requirements for voting, and women could not vote (even if they could, in many states, they would not have been legally able to own the requisite property - land - anyway). We're nearer a democracy today than then, but still a long ways from it. dana1981: "When a 41% minority can obstruct the will of a 59% majority, that's not even close to democracy." And remember that the fillibuster exists in a body that is already *highly* undemocratic in that each state has two senators regardless of population (as a citizen living in a smaller state, I happen to *like* that Oregon is on an equal footing with California in the Senate, but it *is* undemocratic in principle). It works out that Senators representing about 10% of the population of the United States are theoretically able to block legislation from passing the Senate ... Does this fit TomC's definition of "nearly democratic"? Now, when Obama was sworn in, the legislative branch *was* "nearly Democratic" :) -
muoncounter at 12:41 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd: "an over commitment in the expense involved in imposing democracy elsewhere in the world." No, the problems with US public education are far older than our recent fascination with giving others the gift of democracy, whether they like it or not. We were able to educate a generation of engineers when the Russians put the fear of rockets into our government. Since that crisis ended, we've been more interested in letting our children educate themselves and they've chosen to learn how to become first-person shooters. -
scaddenp at 12:37 PM on 14 March 20112nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory
Posting here in hope PhysSci will respond in correct place? "Regarding satellite observations of atmospheric absorption of IR radiation emanating from the surface, they show just that 'absorption' and provide no evidence for a temperature change due to such absorption" Consider ground detectors of IR (DLR). If there is no evidence of temperature change at the surface, explain to me how these detectors work? You seem to be implying that energy absorption by the surface of the detector is not allowed? As to efficiency of radiation cf convection. Lets see surface radiation averages 390W/m2. Convection moves 12W/m2 (and zero off planet). -
Rob Honeycutt at 12:26 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd @ 88... No one is confusion politics and religion here. You keep jumping to conclusions. I'm talking about early years of science where scientific concepts were a challenge to the power structure, which at that time was a religious power structure. For the most part, religion tends to be a very minor influencer in the issue of climate change. But we are very clearly embroiled in a situation today where science is telling us something that is politically inconvenient to one side of the political spectrum. It's this case that causes basic aspects of physics to become a political tennis ball.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text. -
Tom Curtis at 12:10 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd @84, let me assure you that Stalin was all about discipline (as also Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung). They were not, unfortunately, about the rule of law. If you meant "rule of law" when you wrote "discipline" you should have chosen your words more carefully. But do not, whatever you do, mistake one for the other. You are correct that institutional stability (but not stability of policy) is a prerequisite of democracy; but that does not make it the greater virtue. Stability is desirable because of the conditions it allows us to achieve; and therefore is no more valuable than those condistions. Democracy is desirable of itself. Further, equity and democracy are not the same thing. There have been many democracies (or near approaches to democracy) which have been unequitable; which the history of slavery and the civil rights movement in the US should inform you of, even if the Terror in France (or the Murder of Socrates) have slipped your memory. Finally, the greater good for the greater number is consistent with the torture, rape and murder of the small minority; and the later has occurred in pursuit of the former more times in history than can be enumerated. Therefore "the greater good for the greater number" cannot be primary objective of government, still less its basis. -
Marcus at 12:03 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
John D, the running down of education in the US is down to the simple fact that *both* sides of politics in the US are fearful that a well-educated populace might decide to get rid of the whole lot of them. That fear will only increase in light of recent events in North Africa. -
johnd at 12:00 PM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Tom Curtis at 11:39 AM, you don't think that public education in the US is being run down not due to a lack of commitment to democracy, but rather an over commitment in the expense involved in imposing democracy elsewhere in the world. -
Marcus at 11:59 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Also, nofreewind, I can't allow your claims regarding climate change post 1998 to go unchallenged. However you try & cover yourself, your obvious hope was to convince everyone of the Denialist Meme that the planet has been cooling since 1998-by cherry-picking the date that coincides with the strongest El Nino recorded in the 20th century & by cherry-picking the data sets that have most consistently shown the lowest warming trends (funny how HadCru data is suddenly "Beyond reproach", after the Denialists have spent the better part of the last 12 months falsely pillorying them over "Climate-gate"). Yet in spite of *all* of that cherry-picking, you still weren't able to show a cooling trend, let alone one of statistical significance. Your follow-up post on the subject was nothing more than a desperate attempt to cover yourself after your attempted misrepresentations were exposed. -
Marcus at 11:50 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
nofreewind, you really don't get it, do you? You tried to assert that the Senator's claims that "Cap & Trade" will reduce US dependence on foreign oil are rubbish-by simply focusing on a single sector of the US economy. My post showed how your claims were rubbish, & your most recent postings do nothing to alter that. You go on about the number of electric vehicles *currently* on US roads as though its relevant to the debate. For the record, though, there are currently 1.6 million hybrid vehicles on US roads, & several *thousand* full-electric vehicles-not bad for a relatively new transport technology, how long did it take petrol-powered vehicles to take off at the turn of last century? Anyway, I digress. The point is that a cap-&-trade is meant to impact on *future* behaviour. In transportation alone, its hoped that a cap-&-trade mechanism will (a) encourage more Americans to car-pool, use public transport or tele-commute in order to get to work; (b) encourage companies to ship goods, long distance, by rail rather than truck & (c) encourage the uptake of alternative fuel vehicles (electric, hybrid, compressed natural gas, bio-diesel or ethanol blends). The overall impacts of such behavioral changes will be to simultaneously reduce the energy intensity of the transport sector & reduce the oil dependence of the transport sector-which would have the overall effect of reducing US oil dependency-just as the Senator claimed. If similar reductions in energy intensity & oil dependence can be achieved-via Cap-&-trade-in the commercial, residential & industrial sectors, then this will reduce US dependence on oil even further still (&, by extension, dependence on foreign oil). So however you look at it, its the Senator who was bang on the money Nofreewind, ( -Snip- ).Moderator Response: [DB] Let's dial back a bit on the emotion. You've made your point eloquently (your 2x4 with a nail suffices; no need for a field tactical nuke). -
johnd at 11:45 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Rob Honeycutt at 11:07 AM, your mention of the term religiously prompts the observation to be made as to how religion itself is often confused with the politics of religion, just as now the subject of science is being confused with the politics of science. -
scaddenp at 11:44 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Maybe it's a media misconception (I dont trust media), but it also appears that many US citizens would prefer their children to be poorly educated (especially in science) for fear that education might result in them acquiring values they actively reject. -
Tom Curtis at 11:39 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
muoncounter @83, I'm not sure that "begin to see" is the correct phrase about something that has been a dictum for me for over a decade. However, yes, public education is being run down due to a lack of commitment to democracy. This is partly because public education is seen as a sort of economic subsidy (ensuring an educated work force) rather than as an essential of civil society. That is aided, I am sure, by the fact that many politicians do not like educated citizens calling them to account (although I doubt that is often an explicit motivation). -
johnd at 11:38 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM, I believe the original intention of this venue was for the participants to present their own views on such matters based on their understanding of the science. I believe there is a difference between debating someone in the appropriate thread and countering their arguments with the objective of it being a learning experience for one, both or all participants, and trying to discredit an absent politician for his opinions. -
Riduna at 11:25 AM on 14 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
Idunno – thank you. I didn’t want to sound alarmist when mentioning methane – other than point to it already poses a problem, which is not going to diminish. But since you mention its capacity to induce anoxia in the atmosphere, it should be remembered that it can produce those conditions in seawater. This has probably contributed to previous extinction events, particularly of marine life. -
johnd at 11:25 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Tom Curtis at 10:55 AM, discipline is all about applying the rule of law. By definition you simply cannot have one without the other. Whether the rules are considered right or wrong in the eyes of others becomes subjective, and is irrelevant anyway as the only alternative is no rules and hence anarchy. Democracy is based on equity, and that simply cannot be achieved without stability, be it political or economic. The most basic requirement of government is that what has to be done is of the greater good for the greater number. In Australia, the cultural basis for democracy is founded on political apathy. -
muoncounter at 11:10 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
TomC "a commitment to democracy does imply a free, universal system of high standard public education." Now you begin to see the situation. Perhaps the reason our public education in the US has remained so tragic for so long is that an educated electorate is more difficult to fool. And those in power enjoy fooling those without. I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:07 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd @ 75... The whole gist of this article is that the EPA's findings on CO2 were firmly based in physics. Now one political party in the US is attempting to regulate away physics in favor of their preferred political position. The lines between physics and politics are sufficiently blurred in order to make it nearly impossible to discuss climate change without it being political. I believe that discussing the physics of climate change is fully in keeping with SkS, my point is that now even just discussing physics has become a political position. This certainly is not new for science. Science has continually been confrontational with the status quo of political power, that political power often being religiously based in the past. -
Tom Curtis at 11:05 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd @79, clearly the purpose of this site is to discuss the views on the science of the so called skeptics. That is what it says on the home page. That a person is unqualified to have views on the science does not prevent them from claiming knowledge, and expressing an opinion. Nor does it prevent them, if they are in Congress, from attempting to legislate that opinion. Clearly when they do so, they make the opinions they express (or legislate) legitimate topics for posts at this site. What is more, suggesting that only the views of "sceptics" who happen to have a PhD in Atmospheric sciences can have their views legitimately discussed here (as you appear to be doing) is clearly intended to allow the erroneous nonsense of the vast bulk of deniers to be given a free pass from criticism. You are playing the back yard lawyer, in other words, for rhetorical reasons; not out of genuine conviction. Please do not stop doing so. I like it when deniers make themselves look silly. -
Riduna at 11:01 AM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Congratulations John! A well deserved nomination for a site which provides scientific rigour, credible information, excellent moderation and, so important, valuable contributions from climate scientists who know their stuff and deal far more patiently than I ever could with the most obdurate denialists. -
Tom Curtis at 10:55 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd, it is perhaps indicative that you have left out the most important element. My priorities are: 1) Rule of law; 2) Democracy; 3) Equity; and 4) Stability; Discipline is not a virtue of governments at all, beyond the discipline needed to exhibit the above virtues. It is true that for many nations, they do not have the institutional structures for the rule of law, or for democracy. Therefore somebody attempting to provide stability for the nation cannot directly provide democracy. But every action they take to provide stability must be so chosen as to enhance the prospects of a transition to rule of law, and democracy. Otherwise it is unethical. So while circumstance may force a person to participate in a government that it unethical in its constitution; that government should be making an immediate transition to rule of law; and preparing the ground work for a transition to democracy in the short to medium term. Otherwise, the government is unethical in its practice as well as in its constitution. If we do not accept this stricture, the consequence is that we must consider the actions of Mubarak and his secret police as ethical; whereas it was only (for the West) convenient. And we can have no ethical objection to the rule of the Ayotollahs in Iran (who certainly provide stability) however much we pragmatically despise them. Further, your points are completely irrelevant to the situation in the US (and Australia) where there is no constitutional bar to democracy; and where the cultural basis for democracy is strong. -
johnd at 10:53 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
scaddenp at 10:41 AM, that may be so about Monckton, but the point I was making is this was not the site to do that, clogging up page after page with someones unqualified opinions about someone else's unqualified opinions. If Monckton had chosen to post his views on any of the relevant threads then he would have been subject to the comments policy and undoubtedly regularly censured or told to go elsewhere. -
scaddenp at 10:49 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
PhysSci - Actually, what you want to see would seem to be posted here 2nd Law of thermodynamics and greenhouse theory. I suspect you are making same mistakes as others but if you can get your paper published in a journal competent to review it, then I will certainly look at it. -
scaddenp at 10:41 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
PhysSci - I would assert governments trying to legislate Newton Law is wrong. As has been said, its not about whether it's right or not. Please put comments about science in the correct place - ie NOT this thread. JohnD - Monckton might not be a scientist but he presenting science and the posts about correcting his misrepresentation of science not his politics. -
Chris Colose at 10:35 AM on 14 March 2011What would a CO2-free atmosphere look like?
HumanityRules, No, I don't think climate sensitivity itself changing is a fundamental issue, and is more of a higher order effect,at least over a reasonable range of climates (like the Pliocene, LGM, modern day, etc). Your paper looks like a good review. Knutti and Hegerl (2008) is also a great read on the issue. It's very tricky stuff tying to get a good sensitivity range estimate, and 2 to 4.5 C per CO2 doubling as the IPCC, 2007 cites is still a fairly large range to work with, but it's the most credible starting point from which to proceed. Peru, Sorry I didn't respond. I have been traveling over the last 30 hours. I would email a Venusian dynamicist for some authoritative insight on the cloud structure of Venus and how it is maintained (there's still a lot of uncertanties on this topic though, something experts will always stress if you ask them), but there's a lot of differences from Earth conditions. The clouds on Venus are often grouped into different layers, an upper layer (~60–70 km), the middle (50–57 km) cloud layer and a lower (48–50 km) layer. In the upper levels, sulfuric acid is created by photochemistry, and in fact most solar absorption occurs in the high atmosphere making it already different from Earth-like conditions. A large number of sulfur compounds, and some water vapor that is still left over, provide sources for the global cloud cover, and there is condensation by H2SO4 vapor lower down on sulfuric acid particles. This makes the low level clouds more prone to spatial and temporal variations due to convection. There's some literature on these hourly-scale fluctuations, and Bullock and Grinspoon (2001) is a good source for geologic timescale variations in these clouds and how changes in SO2 sources or water vapor amounts may impact things. But it's a lot more complex than just high temperatures, and one can find some similarities but also many differences to Earth's cloud dynamics. There's no straight-forward reason that global cloud cover should increase if you make Earth hotter, and even if it does, how that impacts the surface temperature depends on the altitude and optical properties of the cloud. For clouds formed by condensation in updrafts, you're not likely to get cloud cover close to 100% of the globe. On Earth the microphysics and evaporative/condensation processes are largely controlled by the strength of vertical motions, so to get clouds you need to figure out where the air is being lifted (but by conservation of mass, it needs to be sinking somewhere else). If you take a course in synoptic-scale meteorology, you'll probably spend most of a semester learning different diagnostic tools to figure out, very simply, if the air is rising or sinking. The last thing to note in my already lengthy post, is that evaporation does not scale with Clausius-Clapeyron as the globe warms, since there are surface energy budget constraints that regulate the amount of evaporation that can occur. In fact, in very highly opaque atmospheres, you can increase the temperature by turning CO2 up but if your input solar energy term is not sufficient, you won't be able to increase evaporation. You can still increase the vapor content though, but again, what it means for cloud distribution is anyone's guess. -
Alexandre at 10:30 AM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
snapple #9 I confess I share your surprise. For example, there are many GMU policy advisors at the Heartland Institute (a notorious denialist institution), and even Pat Michaels is a "distinguished senior fellow in public policy" at MCU (not sure what it means). But this initiative is welcome. I will hope this means ideology stopped being a hurdle to accept science. (VERY optimistic, I know...) -
johnd at 10:26 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Tom Curtis at 10:10 AM, ethical government does not automatically default to being a democracy. Is a government that provides stability when stability is essential, not an ethical government? Is a government that provides discipline when discipline is essential, not an ethical government? Stability and discipline are first and foremost essential elements for survival in many nations of the world. The same cannot be said of democracy. In what order of importance would you place each of those elements, stability, discipline and democracy? -
Alexandre at 10:20 AM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
Among the other nominees, I knew the series of podcasts about Climate Change Communication from the Sea Grant Climate Network. It's well worth listening. Well, but I voted SkS, of course. -
johnd at 10:14 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
Rob Honeycutt at 10:00 AM, was not that the philosophy originally driving SkS? That distinction was easily and regularly invoked when various contributors were advised, or directed, to take their political views to a more appropriate blog. -
Tom Curtis at 10:10 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
dhogaza @64, I wouldn't care if the US were a "divine right" monarchy. The fact remains that democracy is the only ethical form of government, and therefore your policy in the US should be defensible on democratic principle if it is to succeed in the long term without unacceptable side consequences. Simply from a practical point of view, arguing (as many proponents of action against AGW have done) that what democratic institutions there are in the US should be further subverted by members of congress side stepping the clear policies they presented to the electorate in favour of expert opinion is politically damaging, and undermines support. In fact, the general distrust of the advise of experts (in Australia as in the US) is in part a consequence of just that sort of action in the past. I leave aside the moronic calls to simply side step democracy that have on occasion been made by proponents of action against AGW. The lack of firm commitment to democracy by those who want to do something about AGW means that they cannot effectively highlight the, in fact, undemocratic actions of those who will let AGW occur by default. Furthermore, it weakens the very conditions which allow public debate, and which therefore gives us the capacity to meet future challenges. -
PhysSci at 10:10 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
scaddenp - In regard to your comment above: "the point of this article is that you cant legislate laws of physics, and law-makers attempts to do so suggest that they think you can choose your reality", I would ask the question, which laws of physics specifically do the law-makers try to legislate? The current GH theory is based on a MISCONCEPTION of the actual physical laws. There is no physical basis for the assertion that CO2 affects climate, no there is any empirical evidence to support such a notion ... Therefore, Congress is not messing up with any laws of physics! -
idunno at 10:04 AM on 14 March 2011The Earth's Sixth Mass Extinction May Be Underway
Hi Daniel, (yeah that's me at Neven's) Good to see you. In the absence of anybody else taking this up, I would like to query how much "further research and monitoring" is really needed... http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532&org=NSF&from=news ...may or may not get you to the latest report on the research from Shakhova and Semilitov. (As you may be aware, my links rarely work.) I accept that they do not speculate about a catastrophically large release of the methane clathrate deposits from the East Siberian shelf. They speculate about a release of 1%. They do not speculate all about the release of gaseous methane buried below the disintegrating clathrate layer. I am speculating about a release of more than 1%, and I do think that this is bang on topic for a thread discussing "mass extinction events". As to possibility/probability, I would not really wish to suggest any actual betting odds, and any speculation from me would be entirely inconsequential, but... It does seem to me that discussion of, for example, sea-level rise by 2100 is perhaps less consequential and less pressing than the discussion of the odds of our current BAU activities triggering a global mass-extinction event in the next decade or so. It's a bet, quite a rash bet, and it looks to me like Dubya and Co put the farm on it. And, frankly, I don't think the farm is very safe. You pays your money, you takes your choice: the wisdom of the global petroligarchy versus the relentless moronic power of the already over-heated ocean. If I had the slightest chance of surviving to collect my winnings...Moderator Response: [DB] You are very much "bang on topic". My caution was in regards to the rates of release and the timing. BAU for another 20 years or so moves a methane clathrate release from a possibility into the probability zone. And it will involve a sight more than 1%...and virtually guarantee an eventual loss of ice at both poles... -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:00 AM on 14 March 2011Republicans to Repeal Laws of Physics
johnd... Given the state of policy I don't see how it's possible to separate physics from politics. -
snapple at 09:53 AM on 14 March 2011Skeptical Science nominated for Climate Change Communicator of the Year
That's wonderful news for you, but I am really surprised that GMU has a prize like this since they get so much money from the Kochs. GMU is investigating Dr. Wegmann for research misconduct in connection with his efforts to discredit the "hockey stick," and they are taking a long time. Attorney General Cucinelli relies on Wegman's report in his attacks on Dr. Mann. http://deepclimate.org/2010/12/23/george-mason-universitys-endless-inquiry/
Prev 1850 1851 1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1859 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 Next
