Are you allowed to shout 'FIRE' in a burning auditorium?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, June 25, 2005 00:15
VIEWED: 6268
PAGE 7 of 8

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

RUE

Saturday, June 18, 2005 10:50 PM

Quote:
One’s assessment of the probability of a proposal does not make the evidence in favor or against such a proposal more or less conclusive.

That assessment was made by scientists doing a scientific study on the reliability of the data. It's science, not politics.

PS Many analyses which rely on many different kinds of data generated by many different projects (sometimes called a meta-analysis) specifically MUST develop uncertainty statements, otherwise the analysis is not credible science.

You say the data is inconclusive simply b/c you assert it is. Show me a study which evaluates the BODY of data and states it is inconclusive, or otherwise assigns error statistics.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You say the data is inconclusive simply b/c you assert it is. Show me a study which evaluates the BODY of data and states it is inconclusive, or otherwise assigns error statistics.

From the IPCC report:

Concerning regional projected climate change:
“Despite recent improvements and developments, regionalization research is still a maturing process and the related uncertainties are still rather poorly known.”
Page 623

Concerning rising ocean levels:
“Sea level change involves many components of the climate system and thus requires a broad range of research activities. . . . We recognize that it is important to assign probabilities to projections, but this requires a more critical and quantitative assessment of model uncertainties than is possible at present.”
Page 681

Concerning extreme climatic events as a result of increased mean global temperature:
“Extreme events are, almost by definition, of particular importance to human society. Consequently, the importance of understanding potential extreme events is first order. The evidence is mixed and data continue to be lacking to make conclusive cases.”
Page 774

This is just a small sample of things that I remember from reading it. If one bothers to read the report one would find that it is indeed riddled with such statements attributing to the inconclusiveness of the evidence. One finds it interesting that after criticizing several people for discussing the report without (based on your assessment) having read it, you would be unaware of such statements. Perhaps you may consider reading the report yourself.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

RUE

Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:23 AM

Quote:
This is just a small sample of things that I remember from reading it. If one bothers to read the report one would find that it is indeed riddled with such statements attributing to the inconclusiveness of the evidence.

It is also full of statements that assign better than even to much better than even levels of probability to major conlusions: global mean temperature is going up, it will continue to go up, it is caused by humans, and while the ultimate magnitude and specific effects on particular areas can't be predicted with certainty, temperatures will continue to rise with deleterious effects overall. I don't have the document on this computer so I can't provide quotes at the moment.

But you are picking relatively trivial details and avoiding the major conclusions. Why is that?

PS I am staring at about 5 hours of work yet to do this eve. I need to sign off for awhile.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It is also full of statements that assign better than even to much better than even levels of probability to major conlusions: global mean temperature is going up, it will continue to go up, it is caused by humans, and while the ultimate magnitude and specific effects on particular areas can't be predicted with certainty, temperatures will continue to rise with deleterious effects overall. I don't have the document on this computer so I can't provide quotes at the moment.

I don’t doubt that the mean global temperature may be increasing, although I do question how deleterious it will be, as the evidence in that area is sketchy at best. In any event, you asked for a study that evaluates the body of data and states that it is inconclusive. There you go.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you are picking relatively trivial details and avoiding the major conclusions. Why is that?

Trivial details, huh? Rising oceans and extreme climatic events are two the most often cited “effects” of global warming by advocates of the precautionary principle. Clearly there wouldn’t seem to be anything “trivial” about such claims when they are being used in unfounded, emotional pleas to justify policy.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 19, 2005 4:15 PM

Global Warming is in play, and to tell the truth, if the world tried real hard, I don't think it could change fast enough to halt, much less reverse the long term effects.
It might be more prudent to try and plan for having a little less shoreline worldwide- that's all. Have children in third world countries sew up more parkas for the coming temperature backlash. Things change. It's not like it's gonna happen overnight, like in The Day After Tomorrow (an entertaining little piece of nonsense). Look what happened to Indonesia; I think the world can handle gradual sea level changes pretty well, it's those grand events we have a hard time with.
And look at the bright side, if there is another Ice Age in store for this planet it'll create all manner of new industries!
I don't mean to downplay it as much as to say the road ahead may get a little bumpy, so we just gotta check our shocks and make sure they're workin'.

Upbeat Chrisisall

THEGREYJEDI

Sunday, June 19, 2005 10:29 PM

Um...

Quote:
Not really. One example, the past eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, and its present relatively circular and centered orbit which are both well documented by the astro-physicists.

Elliptical. Elliptical orbit. Hence the change in length of the day. In addition to the angle of the planet of course.

Let me preface by saying that I don't spend much time in effort into indepth research of global warming, it's causes, the enviromental and energy reports, but I am, in a general level, more educated than most people on the topics discussed in this thread. And now I shall posit my, tardy, opinion:

Global warming is a sticky issue. Whether it is a natural trend or something anthropogenic(sp? New word! Yay!) doesn't really matter. There are pollution concerned that need to be addressed regardless of GW.

Deforestation - A Very Bad Thing. Granted, people gotta eat, and Amazonian soil must be some damn good soil. Someone somewhere just has to accept a hit to the pocket and develop less drastic measures of developing the Third World without making a mess of it. God gave us dominion over the earth. He didn't say "Go ye and kill this world I have made for you."

Fossil Fuels - A Serious Issue. Americans balk at the idea of paying $2 a gallon. Well, it's just over $2 here in NC. Price and participation may vary. Canadians pay as much per liter. But if one goes back 5 years, averages were about $.90 less. Gas price increases make everything more expensive. There are political reasons for this price increase. America just needs to take over OPEC and drop the hell out of the price of oil. Of course, there's only a finite amount of oil. Eventually we're going to run out. And long before we run out, it's going to get ridiculously expensive. We need to kick the habit. But I think we're on our way to that, at least as Americans. We may be the last to jump on the Not-Oil bandwagon, but we can, sadly, afford to stay off the longest. I like nuclear power. I'd vote to approve one. Yeah, there are risks, but not nearly the immediate environmental risks of "traditional" power plants. I did some research into nuclear power for an engineering project a few years ago. Nuclear is the way to go. It was the way to go many years ago, but was just ahead of its time. Technology exists now that didn't exist then. We must make it public knowledge that nuclear power is safe and much cleaner. Ease off nuclear. Let it happen. Don't be hatin'.

Population - Kill Asia. All of it. Except Japan. Then we can move Americans into the freshly unpopulated places, give them jobs and land, boom. And with China and India dead, that's one third of the world's population.

Population, seriously - Growth with respect to the environment. Keep the trees, people. I hate seeing yards, one, two, even three acres, that's AAAAAALLLLLL grass. Trees good. Need lumber? Tree farms. Cut. Replant. Grow. Expensive at first? Maybe. Better in the long run? Definitely. Our innovations became our worst enemies. The sick and old do not die, but live on, consuming resources. It is not the natural way. So we need to get over the natural way. Space colonies are a neat idea. Manufacturing in a micro-gravity environment. Perhaps terraforming desert land into viable farmland? Oh noes! Destruction of the natural beautiful dry and mostly useless sand and rock and bugs OMGWTFBBQ! No, little Timmy, not all of it. Not even a lot of it. But let's take Nevada, for example. Lots of dirt. And Las Vegas. Put some farms out there, man. Terraform! Food! I know the logistics are...complicated, but it's what we're looking at.

GW - It might be an issue. It might not. But, much like fossil records, it's not something that is, easily and indisputably, observable in my lifetime. Let's do what we need to do anyway. Clean it up a bit. Phase out fossil fuels. Shift towards nuclear power(fission and, OMG, fusion). Encourage commercial growth with respect for the environment. Make it unprofitable to c

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, June 19, 2005 11:06 PM

Hi Rue,

I am going to drop out of our discussion. It takes a lot of time, and it would be worth it to me ONLY if we could engage in some meaningful dialogue that helps us learn new information. That is only possible if there is some modicum of respect for what each other has to say. It seems clear to me, however, you have nothing to say to me but patronizing derision. Moreover, we simply focus on completely different issues. When I give a random example to illustrate a principle of scientific method, you jump on the *example* to cast aspersions on my intellect--missing the whole point about the principle. This sort of banter can't lead to meaningful dialogue either. No meaningful dialogue = absolute waste of time.

Best to you,

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

PS. Finn, I would like to engage in a more in-depth discussion with you on GW, one day when I've read as much as you have.

CHRISISALL

Monday, June 20, 2005 12:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
And to think, here I am a financially conservative Republican.

What kind of gorram 'Republican' are you?!?
Oh, the thoughtful, intelligent type, I guess.
I don't generally consider myself a Republican, but I find myself in almost total agreement with you here.
I mentioned in another thread that there were only two kinds of Republicans and Democrats: Thoughtful ones or ignorant ones, and did I get crap for that.
Anyway, I find most Republicans and Democrats to be in the second set, thanks for not bein' one of them.
And thanks for the cool post.

Thoughtful (I hope) Conspiracy Theorist Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, June 20, 2005 3:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
I like nuclear power. I'd vote to approve one. Yeah, there are risks, but not nearly the immediate environmental risks of "traditional" power plants. I did some research into nuclear power for an engineering project a few years ago. Nuclear is the way to go. It was the way to go many years ago, but was just ahead of its time. Technology exists now that didn't exist then. We must make it public knowledge that nuclear power is safe and much cleaner. Ease off nuclear. Let it happen. Don't be hatin'.

Precisely my earlier point. Although somewhat more colloquial then I stated it.

Just a quite note: the Kyoto protocol if implemented and faithfully applied worldwide (which is probably nonsense) might reduce carbon emissions by only single digit percentages. On the other hand nuclear power produces relatively no carbon emissions, and the waste that it does produce is on the order of 10^4 times less per kWh then a typical coal plant, and as research continues nuclear power becomes more efficient. Until and if fusion power becomes feasible, we’re not going to get a better deal then that.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
PS. Finn, I would like to engage in a more in-depth discussion with you on GW, one day when I've read as much as you have.

I’ll look forward to it.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

CANTTAKESKY

Monday, June 20, 2005 7:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
Global warming ...doesn't really matter. There are pollution concerned that need to be addressed regardless of GW.

Deforestation - A Very Bad Thing.

Fossil Fuels - A Serious Issue.

Yes, yes, yes. Thank you, and well said.

Quote:
Population - Kill Asia. All of it. Except Japan. Then we can move Americans into the freshly unpopulated places, give them jobs and land, boom. And with China and India dead, that's one third of the world's population.

This will probably reduce CO2 levels more than fossil fuel regulations. (It's a joke. I'm Asian--and not Japanese either.)

Quote:
Let's do what we need to do anyway. Clean it up a bit. Phase out fossil fuels. Shift towards nuclear power(fission and, OMG, fusion). Encourage commercial growth with respect for the environment. Make it unprofitable to cut corners environmentally.

Bullseye!

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE