Consensus is how science works? I thought it was the complete opposite, that it was the Gailleo, the Darwin, and the Einstein types who create theories that go so far against the grain of "consensus" that they are labeled as heretics. They are the ones that create progress, not those who jump onto pseudoscience PR bandwagons so that they can continue getting their grant money.Believing that science is about consensus, in reality, is anti-science. Al Gore and the global warming cultists sure have done a fine job brainwashing you!
"abandon the existing coastal infrastructure and rebuild inland. Both of these are fairly costly options. Moreover, inundation in coastal communities also increases quite rapidly with sea level (they are having fairly serious issues with this in the Maldives, for instance)."Well, that's what insurance is for ;) , but you know I ment around coastal cities, not around the entire coasts of all the world. Cities were originally build on the sea for the resources, but now there is no need for that, sure some are still very prosperous ports, but mostly these are places for recreation."Added onto this is the fact that many nations are too poor for costly engineering adaptation options or rebuilding infrastructure." but the poorest nations are the ones putting out the most CO2. Limiting there output will put even further strains, and would ultimately lead to forced population reduction.(starvation) However, it isn't the amount of money they have now, that limits there ability to protect themselves in the future, if they become industrious now, they will become wealthy enough to sustain themselves in the future. Barring the island nations from this path, the inhabitants can simply be relocated, if they desire."A number of scenarios are in use, each with different emissions trajectories. Here is a discussion of how the scenarios are constructed"There is a clear lack of insight here, the scenarios are obviously favoring CO2 exponential growth. Especially, since super capacitors are just around the corner. I can't really see us using (primarily) gas based cars much after these become available and cheap. And the nuclear option."Regarding your car analogy, people are trying to work out the costs for action and inaction as we speak." Then lets not jump the gun. Spend vast resources now, or spend well, vast resources in the future, in a time of global prosperity. (assuming marxism isn't widely accepted as..."The only way" -Obama)"Eventually, with zero emissions, ice sheets would start to grow again, yes" So, is the arctic averaging -1c over one year? I just don't see how stopping everything, and putting us all in suspended animation (impossible) with a net 0 output, would make temps go down. (though it would be interesting to see what would happen, to finally learn what is and isn't anthropogenic, since you don't know). conjecture warning!!! : What if the industrial spike of CO2 in addition to forest fire prevention, anti-hunting laws, all gave way to an increase of biological decomposition causing the CO2 to rise. hmmm. Maybe, if we let the forests burn as they would without us. (lol Californians are forbidden by law to cut down trees surrounding their homes, stupid governator)"Well, grounding the discussion in the science is necessary in order to discuss the issues, at the very least to agree on such basic issues as the fact that anthropogenic global warming is occurring."I'm not sold on the models, they didn't predict the current cooling, which, is said to had been caused by El Nina. If it's such a basic principle it should had been included. Another problem is that they've included a world economic model within the GCM, but economics are largely affected by what type of party is in power at that time. I Obama is a big Keynesian economics supporter, and the economy has gone down the crapper due to government subsidies to the largest institutions that do not have any job growth. Our CO2 output will necessarily go down, in the absence of industry, and in the absence of that, we will become poor and incapable of resisting the (hypothetically still) affects of GW. Oh, I went to economics, oops. Well, it was an example, I'm allowed those."Sure, though I (and a number of well-respected scientists and economists, including the IPCC) believe that nuclear should not be excluded from the basket of options."But its not on the table as an option in the US."People are designing said technology. (In fact, we have technology today that could solve most of the problems, it would just be extremely costly and some of it is untested.) Emissions reductions are just generally considered cheaper, easier and they're pretty much certain to work."Well, it is regarded as cheaper, but not yet concluded as cheaper, I cite you as my source. ^Regarding your car analogy, people are trying to work out the costs for action and inaction as we speak.
They created hypotheses that were validated by accumulation of evidence and became the consensus. Scientific consensus is reached through accumulation of peer-reviewed research. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. A scientific consensus is overturned when new research or new interpretations of old research that better fits the observations is presented. It is not refuted by calling it a consensus and conjuring vast conspiracy notions to explain it without acknowledging the accumulated research.I have never seen AIT, and had read the published research on this topic before the movie was even produced.
"The really neat thing about life overall is its ability to adapt to 'change' of all forms, some things die some things live, those that live, evolve, sense the beginning of time, this has always been. I have yet to see any evidence that shows that this is the most extreme (or most hazardous to life) change that the earth has ever encountered."I'm not sure that it's the most threatening (flood basalts, etc. might have been more so, though I study physics, not biology, so you'd do better to ask greenfyre or someone who does) but sudden climate change in the past is often correlated with extinction events, which would be something that we would not want to precipitate and live through.Again, I invite you to read through WG2's contribution to the IPCC: <a class="user" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati ...</a>"My point is that we have always lived in a dynamic world full of change and chance, just because scientists are able to understand these dynamics better now than ever before doesn't mean everyone needs to freak out."I wouldn't advocate freaking out either, but that isn't to say that we should be stalling on taking measures to prevent abrupt climate change.
askantikOct 25, 2009
That's another Gallup poll, bud. All it takes is a 5 second search on Google. You can apologize for sarcastically calling me Einstein now (or you can say you really meant it). Either way, scroll down on the link. The last question shows 18% of people thought the sun revolved around the earth. It's sad as f**k.<a class="user" href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-americans-general-knowledge-levels.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.gallup.com/poll/3742/new-poll-gauges-am ...</a>
mykillkOct 26, 2009
Consensus is how science works? I thought it was the complete opposite, that it was the Gailleo, the Darwin, and the Einstein types who create theories that go so far against the grain of "consensus" that they are labeled as heretics. They are the ones that create progress, not those who jump onto pseudoscience PR bandwagons so that they can continue getting their grant money.Believing that science is about consensus, in reality, is anti-science. Al Gore and the global warming cultists sure have done a fine job brainwashing you!
dbzssj44676Oct 28, 2009
"abandon the existing coastal infrastructure and rebuild inland. Both of these are fairly costly options. Moreover, inundation in coastal communities also increases quite rapidly with sea level (they are having fairly serious issues with this in the Maldives, for instance)."Well, that's what insurance is for ;) , but you know I ment around coastal cities, not around the entire coasts of all the world. Cities were originally build on the sea for the resources, but now there is no need for that, sure some are still very prosperous ports, but mostly these are places for recreation."Added onto this is the fact that many nations are too poor for costly engineering adaptation options or rebuilding infrastructure." but the poorest nations are the ones putting out the most CO2. Limiting there output will put even further strains, and would ultimately lead to forced population reduction.(starvation) However, it isn't the amount of money they have now, that limits there ability to protect themselves in the future, if they become industrious now, they will become wealthy enough to sustain themselves in the future. Barring the island nations from this path, the inhabitants can simply be relocated, if they desire."A number of scenarios are in use, each with different emissions trajectories. Here is a discussion of how the scenarios are constructed"There is a clear lack of insight here, the scenarios are obviously favoring CO2 exponential growth. Especially, since super capacitors are just around the corner. I can't really see us using (primarily) gas based cars much after these become available and cheap. And the nuclear option."Regarding your car analogy, people are trying to work out the costs for action and inaction as we speak." Then lets not jump the gun. Spend vast resources now, or spend well, vast resources in the future, in a time of global prosperity. (assuming marxism isn't widely accepted as..."The only way" -Obama)"Eventually, with zero emissions, ice sheets would start to grow again, yes" So, is the arctic averaging -1c over one year? I just don't see how stopping everything, and putting us all in suspended animation (impossible) with a net 0 output, would make temps go down. (though it would be interesting to see what would happen, to finally learn what is and isn't anthropogenic, since you don't know). conjecture warning!!! : What if the industrial spike of CO2 in addition to forest fire prevention, anti-hunting laws, all gave way to an increase of biological decomposition causing the CO2 to rise. hmmm. Maybe, if we let the forests burn as they would without us. (lol Californians are forbidden by law to cut down trees surrounding their homes, stupid governator)"Well, grounding the discussion in the science is necessary in order to discuss the issues, at the very least to agree on such basic issues as the fact that anthropogenic global warming is occurring."I'm not sold on the models, they didn't predict the current cooling, which, is said to had been caused by El Nina. If it's such a basic principle it should had been included. Another problem is that they've included a world economic model within the GCM, but economics are largely affected by what type of party is in power at that time. I Obama is a big Keynesian economics supporter, and the economy has gone down the crapper due to government subsidies to the largest institutions that do not have any job growth. Our CO2 output will necessarily go down, in the absence of industry, and in the absence of that, we will become poor and incapable of resisting the (hypothetically still) affects of GW. Oh, I went to economics, oops. Well, it was an example, I'm allowed those."Sure, though I (and a number of well-respected scientists and economists, including the IPCC) believe that nuclear should not be excluded from the basket of options."But its not on the table as an option in the US."People are designing said technology. (In fact, we have technology today that could solve most of the problems, it would just be extremely costly and some of it is untested.) Emissions reductions are just generally considered cheaper, easier and they're pretty much certain to work."Well, it is regarded as cheaper, but not yet concluded as cheaper, I cite you as my source. ^Regarding your car analogy, people are trying to work out the costs for action and inaction as we speak.
vikingcoderOct 29, 2009
They created hypotheses that were validated by accumulation of evidence and became the consensus. Scientific consensus is reached through accumulation of peer-reviewed research. It is descriptive, not proscriptive. A scientific consensus is overturned when new research or new interpretations of old research that better fits the observations is presented. It is not refuted by calling it a consensus and conjuring vast conspiracy notions to explain it without acknowledging the accumulated research.I have never seen AIT, and had read the published research on this topic before the movie was even produced.
loneagleNov 5, 2009
Sad sack morons, never read a book in your petty lives, filthy racists. Seems like you didn't get enough fascism in the last 8 yars. Sheeeshh!
kilroyyNov 7, 2009
@bossm4n:Trolling is completely wasted on you isn't it? Yeah, you're a douche.
halleys5thNov 9, 2009
The headline is true, but it's over 9,000 PhD scientists, not snowmen:<a class="user" href="http://www.petitionproject.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.petitionproject.org/</a>
dhartinNov 12, 2009
so wheres the proof that global warming is bad for the world or the environment?
themonikerNov 12, 2009
Well, first, to be clear, 'proof' has a distinct meaning in scientific discourse. Nothing outside the realm of certain areas of logic and math is proven: not even that the sun will come up tomorrow or that a stone will drop straight down. However, there is a mountain of evidence that it is occurring. To begin with, you might want to look over the IPCC WG1 Report: <a class="user" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati ...</a>Then, to analyze the effects of this warming, start with the IPCC WG2 Report: <a class="user" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati ...</a>In addition to this, to put your mind at rest with regards to the misinformation campaign that is out there, you would be well advised to look over the research journals themselves, either in your local library/university/college, or available online: <a class="user" href="http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-archive&amp;issn=1520-0442" rel="nofollow">http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ar ...</a> <a class="user" href="http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home" rel="nofollow">http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/ho ...</a> <a class="user" href="http://www.agu.org/journals/gb/" rel="nofollow">http://www.agu.org/journals/gb/</a>In addition, it couldn't hurt to actually talk with several climate scientists, ideally those who live nearby whom you could sit down and discuss this with. This will allow you to look past claims (similar to those used by the intelligent design misinformation groups) that there is controversy among the scientific community as to whether or not this is happening. They might also be able to give you some reasonably decent textbooks on climatology, oceanography, etc. so that you can look over things for yourself with greater understanding.
themonikerNov 12, 2009
"The really neat thing about life overall is its ability to adapt to 'change' of all forms, some things die some things live, those that live, evolve, sense the beginning of time, this has always been. I have yet to see any evidence that shows that this is the most extreme (or most hazardous to life) change that the earth has ever encountered."I'm not sure that it's the most threatening (flood basalts, etc. might have been more so, though I study physics, not biology, so you'd do better to ask greenfyre or someone who does) but sudden climate change in the past is often correlated with extinction events, which would be something that we would not want to precipitate and live through.Again, I invite you to read through WG2's contribution to the IPCC: <a class="user" href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publicati ...</a>"My point is that we have always lived in a dynamic world full of change and chance, just because scientists are able to understand these dynamics better now than ever before doesn't mean everyone needs to freak out."I wouldn't advocate freaking out either, but that isn't to say that we should be stalling on taking measures to prevent abrupt climate change.