Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaineShark]

Insignificance makes no difference. Any amount attributed to humans would be anthropogenic. Its the applied science that is in question.

The study of the threshold at which an input to a system becomes significant, is part of the basic science studying that system.

Joe

[Alex Libman]

Anticivilizationists propaganda news roundup:

• Irene brings with her new talk of climate change...

• Gore: Global warming skeptics are this generation's racists

• "Scientists" Say Aliens May Destroy Mankind Over Global Warming

With Mommy Government violently monopolizing scientific research, is it any wonder that only 6% of "scientists" understand basic economics?!

[John Edward Mercier]

Insignificance makes no difference. Any amount attributed to humans would be anthropogenic. Its the applied science that is in question.

The study of the threshold at which an input to a system becomes significant, is part of the basic science studying that system.

Joe

So if we rob someone of a million dollars... but I only take one dollar... I really didn't rob them?
Your trying to make an applied argument about basic science.

The factor that humans may not be a major contributor is not the same as humans not being a contributor.

[MaineShark]

So if we rob someone of a million dollars... but I only take one dollar... I really didn't rob them?
Your trying to make an applied argument about basic science.

The factor that humans may not be a major contributor is not the same as humans not being a contributor.

Um, no.  You're comparing logic and science, which are two different fields.

In a self-stabilizing system, additions below the threshold at which it becomes unbalanced, literally have no contribution to change, because the system automatically adapts to them.

Release some extra carbon dioxide?  More plants grow, and existing plants grow larger.

Unless you release so much, so fast, that plants cannot possibly overcome it, there is no impact on global temperatures due to carbon dioxide releases.

The whole "butterfly effect" thing is popular nonsense, with no basis in science.  Real systems are very stable, which is how they survived as many years as they have, and small inputs are automatically adapted-for.  That's the basic science.  Measuring and charting the adaptation would be applied science.

Joe

[MS Libertarian]

It is like threatening to steal from them but not taking anything.

[John Edward Mercier]

The basic science shows an increase in atmospheric and marine concentrations of carbon... so we're currently beyond that threshold.

While those scientists are using flawed applied science to determine that this extra carbon is 100% (or nearly 100%) human-induced... it would also be flawed application to suggest that none of it is human-induced.

[Alex Libman]

News roundup:

• Krugman Fails Climate Science 101  (notice the similarity of the "five questions" to what I've written before)

• CERN: Sun, not man, controls Earth's climate...

• PAPER: 'No one has made more money from climate change hype than Gore'...

• Alaska: Climate Change is no Threat to Polar Bears

• UK having coldest summer in two decades...

• Obama's proposed regs would cost billions annually

• Is "climate change" making us crazy?

And, here's a (potentially) interesting aside...

I always have a dozen movie screenplays I'll never write turning over in my head, and one of them is a psychological drama taking place at a Soviet climate research station, something like M*A*S*H meets Apocalypse Now in the deep arctic.  Well, I just came across a film set in a similar setting, the (poorly translated) English title of which is How I Ended This Summer [BT] [IMDb].  That film doesn't address the accuracy and reliability of the weather data the same way I would, but it touches upon a related theme...  As one review puts it, "the Arctic Circle makes people crazy".  The film takes place in the present, and doesn't touch upon issues like alcoholism and career disgruntlement, but what's been happening at those horrendously underfunded stations leading up to and during the collapse of the Soviet economy was a total FUBAR nightmare.  Academics were sent there basically as punishment for stepping on the wrong toes in the Soviet science bureaucracy, and were left there for extended periods of time, expected to "do their duty for the motherland", freezing their butts off to get readings that no one else could verify...

[Alex Libman]

Gore in 24-hour broadcast to brainwash and coerce climate realists...

My prediction: 86,400 seconds seconds of childish emotionalism and appeals to authority (self-selected high-priests of environmentalism), 0 seconds on actual science and logic.

[Uncle Walt]

The basic science shows an increase in atmospheric and marine concentrations of carbon... so we're currently beyond that threshold.

While those scientists are using flawed applied science to determine that this extra carbon is 100% (or nearly 100%) human-induced... it would also be flawed application to suggest that none of it is human-induced.

I stopped using carbon paper for copies, to reduce MY "carbon footprint".   

[Alex Libman]

Tax resisters who don't drive on the government road monopoly and follow my Tax Resister Diet should have some of the lowest carbon footprints in the world.  I live in a small room, I walk everywhere, and I don't even have a fridge (I need the exercise of walking to store every day).  Government and pollution tend to go together, so if you avoid the former you'll avoid the latter as well.

[WendellBerry]

Tax resisters who don't drive on the government road monopoly and follow my Tax Resister Diet should have some of the lowest carbon footprints in the world.  I live in a small room, I walk everywhere, and I don't even have a fridge (I need the exercise of walking to store every day).  Government and pollution tend to go together, so if you avoid the former you'll avoid the latter as well.

good for you for walking, but aren't you walking on "government owned" sidewalks

[Alex Libman]

Let's take this sidewalks / easement rights conversation to a new thread.

[John Edward Mercier]

Generally when they're referencing a 'carbon footprint' their allocating only certain processes.
I saw this once at a Montreal summit, where a woman speaking for the First Nation, wanted immediate restrictions on registering auto/trucks/SUVs that didn't achieve a certain mileage standard... but was aghast when someone suggested expanding to all forms of transport including snowmobiling. It was more of an urban/rural shoving match than science.

[swamp_yankee]

The ugliness of the "Green Movement" keeps rearing its ugly head.

Liberals elevate global warming and the environment into a moral imperative, thereby giving them leverage to exploit authoritarian government with little push back

But I loved in the last GOP debate when Newt Gingrich reminded people that the "green economy" is one giant tax loophole, corny capitalism, neo-fascism. Whatever you call it.

But the Solyndra story, and Evergreen Solar across the border in MA are disgusting. Half a billion of taxpayer dollars and corrupt regulatory shortcuts went to pump up Obama's business project, that had no natural supply and no natural demand. Government controlled economy at its worst, and no one will say a peep because fighting global warming is so noble.

[Alex Libman]

It was the government that created this addiction to hydrocarbons in the first place, with a century of tax-victim-funded trillion-dollar wars to reduce the cost at the pump.  Regulations for private sector nuclear energy and other alternatives were grossly mishandled as well.  Governments also encourage other wasteful uses of resources, like meat consumption, military, liability limitations for polluters, etc.  In the long term, space-based solar power (and possibly space-based antimatter reactors) are the future, but we have to get there organically - not on the basis of central planning deciding when its time to switch to what source of energy. 

I'm not even against gas taxes and pollution taxes for the short term - government isn't going to disappear overnight...  If it must steal money in the meantime, then stealing it on the basis of pollution is certainly less harmful than stealing it on the basis of income.  But the rational solution is to punish polluters on the basis of other people's Property Rights, at which the government monopoly in jurisprudence has been a total failure.  If the free market can unite millions of people to shop at Amazon.com or vote for American Idol, it can certainly organize them to fill out an online form to join a joint action lawsuit!

The greentards keep moving the goalposts on what their concept of "global warming" or "global climate change" really means.  One minute it means things we all agree on: sucking on a tailpipe is a bad idea, urban warming, indefinite pollution growth would eventually cause a problem, etc.  Then, after they've gathered their opinion data and ingrained those concepts into people's political identities, those concepts suddenly mean the worst of catastrophes that alarmists care to imagine, and that can only be solved through urgent imposition of world communism.  Classic bait and switch.  They never have to defend their crazy "sky is falling" fantasies with actual science, only appeals to authority and popularity, because enough people have already bought onto a completely different framing of the question.