The Glade 4.0

Science also takes data, makes resonable assumptions based on existing models, (such as the production of greenhouse gasses, and an extrapolation of small scale data into large scenarios and can predict (though not always accuratly) and allow for policy decisions based on such.

It comes down to a gamble though.

Is it a 10% chance of global catastrophic climate change?
A 30% chance?
a 60% chance?

On the other side there is the risk of negative economic impact.
is it a 90% chance?
a 70% chance?

and if so what is the likely fallout?

The REAL issue is the Risk-Benefit analysis-- people are not sure about the risks, not sure about the analysis--everyone sees SOME potential of risk, people can't agree on what level that chance is.

That does NOT mean we should be innactive. What is the consequence of reducing emissions? Some companies bottom line lowers? I'm sorry, but I don't have to have incontravertable proof of HIGCC -- I just think the consequences of most actions are so minimal, that its downright criminal to do nothing, particularly when the consequences of innaction-- even if its a .1% chance of being right, are so dire, that we should be erring on the side of caution.

Not all change is bad. One thing you never hear mentioned is that the net change from HIGCC, if it is real, could be positive. Even less is modeled regarding the possible consequences of "Climate Change" than the possibility of it occurring. The Earth as a whole is not an ideal climate/ecosystem for human beings. That's why we evolved in africa, not North America.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'd speculate that there would be greater evaporation of water and thus more rainfall when it condenses higher in the atmosphere. The tropics have higher temperature and they get a ton of rain... don't see why it would be different in other areas with an increased temperature.

Bad science does that. Good science doesn't make reasonable assumptions. Good scientists create a hypothesis (not an assumption, this is a reasonable guess), test the hypothesis, and see if there's evidence to disprove it. If not, they keep running the same test and varying tests to find if there's an instance in which is can be disproven. If it is, an alternate hypothesis is brought forth.

Unfortunately for HIGCC, there's plenty of evidence that disproves the hypothesis, yet a substantially different alternate hypothesis is not reached. Instead, the verbiage changes to fit whatever viewpoint the community has and the evidence is twisted, through predictive models to back the hypothesis.

And you can say it's only about money TheRiov, but it's about much more than that. It's also about legislating a loss of freedom in the name of the environment. Households must reduce their carbon footprint or else, for instance. Or taxes passed to do the exact same thing. If you can't see that as the endpoint, you're not paying enough attention to the present.

My problem with everyone's predictions of climate changes or no climate changes, is that there just isn't enough data. The most accurate data we have of the earth's climate is in the last 150 years, and that's being generous.

The earth has been around for over 4.5 billion years. So the data we have is the smallest of the tiniest fractions. That isn't enough to predict anything by. It's like trying to view a stock's trend for the past 20 years by only looking at the last couple seconds' worth.


Global warming or no global warming, we humans really just don't know ****.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

But we're not talking about science. The science is not yet conclusive. If we're talking about scientific rigor, you're absoutly right.

We're talking about POLICY which is not an exact science. Policy is about measured risks.

We can't prove for for certain that it was the sun that caused my father's 3 different forms of skin cancer.
Certainly not enough to make a scientific law about it. But to satisfy scientific rigor I'd have to TRY to give him skin cancer again repeatedly to have statistically significant results. I'd need a control group and a hell of a lot of samples.
I don't have a control group for my father. I don't have a control for our planet. I can make predictions based on some of the data we've seen. and we can take further action to limit his exposure to the sun.
Likewise we can limit the damage we do the planet --- WITHOUT satsifying scientific rigor.

Only if you try to claim that we can only know the conditions we observe directly.
However there are plenty of methods of looking at historical climate data for a period far far longer than this.

You just wont be happy until you can swim in the lakes in January without leaving Canada, will you?

I think that the more water there is in the atmosphere the more likely you are to see a reverse greenhouse effect, think nuclear winter. With clouds covering more and more of the skies more heat is deflected back into space and less is able to penetrate to the surface. This results in cooling. (I THINK THAT'S THE THEORY, don't quote me.)

_________________

Fair enough then. But a lot of the policy decisions point to faulty science as their evidence.

You aren't doing that according to your post, so I'll still give you a reason why we shouldn't. Because it limits our freedom for a low probability that humans signficantly affect the environment. Forcing people to live a certain way as to protect the environment just leads down a slippery slope later where we should also regulate how people eat (plants and animals we grow and harvest affect the environment), the tools they use (we cut down trees for wood as an example), or even the way they heat and light their own homes (burning fossil fuels or natural gas). It's just another way to control what the masses can do. Being more libertarian in my viewpoints, as you probably knew or figured out, I entirely disagree with doing that.

As for the example with your father and skin cancer, there are many ways to scientifically get evidence for sun causing skin cancer without using an impossible scenario as you propose. We just want to limit the variables as much as possible in biology, since it's incredibly difficult to eliminate all variables due to biological pathways and such. And there are other ways to go about that research than to use just your father to find that out. Remember, science is about repetition and finding commonalities.

Which completely avoids all of my questions.

I asked, how much do you need for "good data"?

Since it is clear that you will not have "enough" data anytime soon, what do you do? Ignore it?

You cannot hide behind "science". This is a problem not just for scientists. Scientists may say, "here's what we have for data, here's what it predicts if we make these assumptions, here's our basis for these assumptions, here's our uncertainty."

You're not going to get enough data to acheive certainty, not for a long time.

Now, it's POLICY-MAKERS turns. You cannot hide behind science, because that is not going to get you where you want to go. You have the data, it's not good, NOW WHAT?

EDIT: You answered above.

Your engineer is showing.

But I like your implied assertion that Einstein was a C-grade scientist. Ienan is quite correct, in my opinion.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

You need better methods. Or you don't admit to their being a "problem" with the climate. There might be ways to show evidence without using temperatures over the past 150 years. If there isn't, then why the rush to think there's a problem at all?

Policy makers are going to make their decisions, despite scientific evidence anyway. It is not the point of science to help policy makers make decisions. The point of science is develop and expand our knowledge of the physical world. If that takes time, so be it. If it takes methods that are as of yet unknown, then develop those methods. But don't hang on to bad science because policy makers want to make decisions.

My understanding is that Einstein only subscribed to the idea of a god because he didn't like the possibility that the universe was finite.

Isn't that like saying "We don't know if you've got rabies; we couldn't catch the animal that bit you, and the window to treat is is closing-- but since we don't have enough data so we should do nothing."

Yeah the treatment sucks ...shots in the stomach and all that....
But if you wait till the patient is symptomatic rabies has nearly a 100% fatality rate.

I can turn that example on you. What about prescribing antibiotics without knowing if you have a bacterial infection? Antibiotics don't do squat to viral infections, so doctors would just prescribe antibiotics in case it a bacterial infection. Unfortunately, this has led to several major diseases becoming more common again because bacteria have adapted to our antibiotics that we overused. Thus, creating "superbugs". Sometimes the effects of our proposed solution can be worse than the problem itself.

Dude, whaaat?

This funds a LOT of science. The second statement funds almost ZERO science. There's some philanthropists out there, sure, but there's generally a policy or a product driving the science.

From my understanding of his readings, he felt there was no evidence that there was a god, but personally choose to believe in the possibility of one anyway. He was quite outspoken against both atheists and strictly organized religion, arguing in favor of agnosticism.

One of my favorite quotes of his:



He has many similar quotes, all very well worded and similar in nature.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

How about stop using it to prop up your political agenda, spending billions of taxpayer dollars, and wasting time and money passing pointless legislation?

what political agenda? Stop destroying the environment?


I look at motives. I just see lot of self interest on one side of the argument--that alone would make me suspcious of any results that side of the argument has.

So ignore it until you have, what, 1,000 years of data?

I love this argument.

So - the Earth, without assistance from us, regulates its environment for billions of years, producing all manner of life that we know of, evolves us, but hey, if we mess with it we can make it better.

Your faith in mankind exceeds mine.

I'll tell you what - I'll give you a challenge. When has an unintended consequence of mankind's industrial activity ever produced a positive result?

I would like data showing that the effects of global warming are actually harmful. I don't think the data exists. I agree that global warming is very likely happening.



Are you aware that we are a product of Earth? What's so special about this 50 year timeslot compared to 4 billion? The CO2 we're putting in the air used to be in the air.

I dare you to prove that. Many scientific undertakings are done solely for expanding our knowledge. Sometimes it has a direct impact on policy and sometimes not. Not everything comes down to legislators making decisions about things. Sometimes it's to research an area to make product for profit. Sometimes it's an undertaking to learn more about human behaviors. Sometimes it's to learn about a particular organism. I mean why would anyone ever do research into any animal or plant that doesn't have a direct influence on humans? For instance, why research deep in rainforests then? Sometimes it's done to find plants for pharmaceuticals, but sometimes it's not.

If you think there's a lot of self-interest on one side of the argument, then you're not looking at motives. You're listening to rhetoric from the other side. There is just as much self-interest coming from the human-induced-global-catastrophe camp. They want more funding for their research, and more political clout.

If anyone was approaching climate change from the stance that it is a problem, they would drop the "human-induced" part. Our climate is changing with or without humans making an impact on it. Our planet is going to heat up to the point where oceans vanish with or without humans. These are things we can't avoid. No amount of green energy and sustainability research is going to keep the planet's temperature constant once the sun's luminosity doubles.

If we really thought climate change was a problem, we'd be pursuing colonization of Venus and the moon. Both are **** when the sun enters its red giant phase, but that's beside the point. The technology to colonize Venus will be important later on. If we really thought that the polar ice caps melting would be an issue, we'd start the design phase for constructing domed cities on the ocean floor. Like with the colonization of Venus, we don't actually need to be living in sunken cities - the technology to build them will advance climate control. Then, we actually would have incontrovertible proof of our ability to influence our environment and we would be able to exercise it in order to stabilize our world.

Climate change is not being taken seriously be either side. The opponents think it's a load of hogwash, and the proponents are too hung up on drive a Prius and save the polar bears bullshit.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.