Has nothing to do with Ayn Rand, Libertarianism, or politics in general. It's about the role and limits of science, the role of the political process, and the appropriate relationship between the two. Like, it's not up to science to demand, decide, whatever, that we take steps to reduce carbon emissions - it's a political question. The Scientism aspect is that some scientists see everything as a question that can be resolved by scientific inquiry. They box themselves in when you see the kind of thing SPD posted recently, about redshift we perceive being due to everything growing heavier. It's a matter of perspective - we didn't measure the redshift until very recently in geological time frame - too short a time to detect things getting heavier. Or that it's possible the speed of light changes over geologic time, which would really fuck up a big house of cards of science built on it being a constant as we know it today. Those two questions, among many (as I see them) are outside the bounds of scientific inquiry.
Why are we of the mind that the climate remains static and right now it's in the optimal position? I don't think many deny that human emissions put things like CO2 into the atmosphere at higher levels than had existed a millennia or two before. I simply question the impact of those emissions. Science has not provided a satisfactory answer on this fundamental question. There's a lot of research, and a lot of heat on this issue, but there's precious little light.
Can I counter with the record temps in the Southwest this past June? or the record heat wave in Europe this month? or the record heat wave in Asia this month? or possibly the record heat wave in Australia earlier this year? When all is said and done 2013 may shape up to be the hottest on record.
I think we all need to understand the difference between climate and weather. Furthermore, our carbon output may simply be collinearity.
the whole correlation ≠ causation gambit is interesting. could be right, probably not though although, while people are busy worrying about a little global warming, pretty soon there wont be clean drinking water or dirt that supports life its pollution that is the actual problem global warming is one of the least concerning consequences imo
The only way causation can be right is if you ignore that actual data. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...e-global-temperatures-are-not-following-suit/
It doesn't matter whether or not the planet is warming. Al Gore accomplished what he set out to do, and that was to become a billionaire by doing with Climate Change what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Calypso Louie did with racial tension: Demonize, extort, profit, repeat.
well, for starters, he's not a billionaire, but secondly, I think better examples of using those tactics (demonize, extort, profit, repeat) would be Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'reilly, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Bill Maher. About a 3rd of his net worth (he's worth about 300 million) came from the sell of Current TV. So..yeah. there's that.
It's too funny that you again cite the same writer who so clearly slaughtered the last article you posted that you tried to disassociate yourself with that article by inferring that you posted it as a joke. And then you post another one of his articles? But let's not attack the writer as you mentioned before, let's attack the article. You say The only way causation can be right is if you ignore that actual data. funny because this writer makes conclusions while ignoring the actual data: Your contention is an error. NCDC, NASA, and CRU all show a statistically significant warming trend, despite both a solar minima and increased volcanic activity. What’s more, paleoclimate indicators also indicate a consistent temperature rise. I’m not sure where your claim that there’s been no warming since 1995 is coming from, since all of the data indicates the contrary. The fact that carbon dioxide traps heat in gaseous mixtures, and traps more heat as its concentration in such a mixture increases has been consistently experimentally demonstrated since the mid-19th century. What’s more, as F. Parrenin et al, demonstrated in their paper in Science earlier this month, the last major glacial melt was ALSO preceded by a significant rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. I suggest you consult your sources, as they appear to be leading you astray on two simple, experimentally demonstrated facts: 1) carbon dioxide traps heat and 2) there has been a statistically significant warming trend for the past several decades. So go ahead and defend the article for awhile until you realize the writer is writing junk and then get out saying you were only kidding. Edit: and I know I have been all over you these days papag and telling myself to stop . . . but what the hell is up with some of these posts
The sale of Current TV to oil-producing countries, and money gained via oil? Some might consider that blood money, considering how anti-fossil fuel Gore perports to be. Al Gore is a charlatan and a con man. The guy talks non-stop about oceans rising, yet he builds a 10,000 sq. ft. estate on the beach in 2010.
Temperatures are stagnant. CO2 emissions are rising. Hence, there is no causation. A post on a message board, without any links, is just more propaganda. Temperatures have not been steadily climbing in proportion with CO2 emissions over the last 15 years. This is a fact.
n a February 2010 interview with the BBC, Phil Jones was asked: BBC: “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?” Phil Jones: “Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.” Bummer, man. The Global Warming fraud is religion to some of you.
ToB, it would be nice if you would link the annual climb in temperature since 1998, and how it looks next to the rise in CO2. Hint - it's not a causal relationship.
Propaganda . . . you mean like the opinion article you linked that is wrong on so many levels. You know like when you posted that about the "scientific study" he wrote about that ended up not being a scientific study but a study of engineers in the oil industry justifying their jobs. I'm surprised you read anything this writer writes after he pulled a fast one on you and had you starting a thread with his article title only to find out his title was completely misleading and wrong.
I love how you chose 1998. how convenient. btw, think LONG term, not short term. I realize that if you look long term you see that isolating short periods that would benefit your viewpoint while masking the bigger picture.
