Fair enough. It would be interesting to see a composite cost/benefit for such a list of issues, contentious though any such estimate would be. For example how does one "solve religious / ethnic hatred" much less put a price on it? In comparison, AGW seems the far more tractable problem. The reality is that most of us don't care about remote problems be they remote in geography or time.
Citizen Runner wrote:The reality is that most of us don't care about remote problems be they remote in geography or time.True, true...
genuine random a hole wrote:
Haha
Brilliant Brojo filter does not allow one to write the proper term.
OK Brojos, "come laude" is that better?
Why not just write "cum laude"? What am I missing here?
Sally V wrote:
Well, it means that the Earth has not warmed in almost 2 decades!
Oh, dear. No, it doesn't.
Earlier in the thread, this link was posted:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2014-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record-18041Now, if you actually read the linked article, you see that the headline overstates, and that there's just a decent *chance* 2014 will be the warmest year (GLOBALLY) on record.
But you'll also encounter a chart saying that both 2005 and 2010 were warmer (GLOBALLY) than 1998.
As a result: Earth *has* warmed up in the intervening 16 years.
It really is a shame that so many otherwise-intelligent and -educated people have such a limited grasp of statistics. For instance, it's possible for Earth to be in the midst of a warming trend, even though 2011, 2012, and 2013 were not warmer than 2010. Sadly, some people think there can be a warming trend only if each year is warmer than the year before!
p.n. wrote:
genuine random a hole wrote:Haha
Brilliant Brojo filter does not allow one to write the proper term.
OK Brojos, "come laude" is that better?
Why not just write "cum laude"? What am I missing here?
I don't know why, but it flagged me as inappropriate
cum laude ---- right seems OK now
reality cheque wrote:
Which side:
WANTS to debate this issue?
Which side:
DOES NOT want to debate this issue?
Hmm. At a guess, I'd say the AGW-denial group had a higher percentage of people who wanted to debate this issue.
Let's take a look at another scientific "debate" (it isn't, really): evolution vs. creationism, shall we? Creationists emphatically are the group that's more interested in debating. Those who accept evolution as scientific fact (aka "evolutionists") just tend to see evolution as a done deal, and are more interested in moving on to other things.
Now, as it happens, evolution is a scientific fact, so the side that's more interested in debating the subject is the--how to say this--wrong side.
So by analogy can we reasonably conclude that the side that is more interested in debating a subject is the side that's in the wrong? Or does it make more sense simply to say that "which side wants to debate" is not a useful datum for OR against the truth of a scientific proposition?--and that reality cheque's "trenchant" questions have added nothing to the discussion?
p.n. wrote:
Sally V wrote:Well, it means that the Earth has not warmed in almost 2 decades!
Oh, dear. No, it doesn't.
Earlier in the thread, this link was posted:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2014-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record-18041Now, if you actually read the linked article, you see that the headline overstates, and that there's just a decent *chance* 2014 will be the warmest year (GLOBALLY) on record.
But you'll also encounter a chart saying that both 2005 and 2010 were warmer (GLOBALLY) than 1998.
As a result: Earth *has* warmed up in the intervening 16 years.
It really is a shame that so many otherwise-intelligent and -educated people have such a limited grasp of statistics. For instance, it's possible for Earth to be in the midst of a warming trend, even though 2011, 2012, and 2013 were not warmer than 2010. Sadly, some people think there can be a warming trend only if each year is warmer than the year before!
The discussion is not whether the Earth has had higher temps in the intervening years. It is that the current global temps (2013)are lower as the global temp in 1998. And, please quit saying "on record" since that only applies to since 1880 or so. So in the future, please say warmest temps since 1880, which is 135 years out of 4.6 BILLION.
Then why are icebergs melting at a rapid rate?
Why has the earth map changed drastically?
Why is the ocean much warmer?
Me4 wrote:Then why are icebergs melting at a rapid rate?
Icebergs? Are you sure you mean icebergs? I think maybe you mean glaciers.
Why has the earth map changed drastically?
What are you talking about?!? Elaborate please.
Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:
p.n. wrote:Oh, dear. No, it doesn't.
Earlier in the thread, this link was posted:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2014-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record-18041Now, if you actually read the linked article, you see that the headline overstates, and that there's just a decent *chance* 2014 will be the warmest year (GLOBALLY) on record.
But you'll also encounter a chart saying that both 2005 and 2010 were warmer (GLOBALLY) than 1998.
As a result: Earth *has* warmed up in the intervening 16 years.
It really is a shame that so many otherwise-intelligent and -educated people have such a limited grasp of statistics. For instance, it's possible for Earth to be in the midst of a warming trend, even though 2011, 2012, and 2013 were not warmer than 2010. Sadly, some people think there can be a warming trend only if each year is warmer than the year before!
The discussion is not whether the Earth has had higher temps in the intervening years. It is that the current global temps (2013)are lower as the global temp in 1998. And, please quit saying "on record" since that only applies to since 1880 or so. So in the future, please say warmest temps since 1880, which is 135 years out of 4.6 BILLION.
So your contention is that data from two years (1998 and 2013) is more pertinent than that of 130+ years?
Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:
[quote]Sally V wrote:
Well, it means that the Earth has not warmed in almost 2 decades!
It is accurate to say that Earth was no warmer in 2013 than it was 15 years prior to that.
It is inaccurate to say that "the Earth has not warmed in 15 years".
But I doubt you can comprehend the difference and you will keep spewing the same falsities.
stats on stats wrote:
[quote]Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:
[quote]p.n. wrote:
So your contention is that data from two years (1998 and 2013) is more pertinent than that of 130+ years?
Actually, no. My contention is to focus on 135 years ("on record") is outrageous considering the Earth is 4.6 billion years.
the grand inquisitor wrote:
Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:[quote]Sally V wrote:
Well, it means that the Earth has not warmed in almost 2 decades!
It is accurate to say that Earth was no warmer in 2013 than it was 15 years prior to that.
It is inaccurate to say that "the Earth has not warmed in 15 years".
But I doubt you can comprehend the difference and you will keep spewing the same falsities.
Not at all. I have said repeatedly that the Earth's temp in 2013 is no higher than in 1998. I have also said that, despite annual increases at times, the Earth's global Temp in 1998 was higher than in 2013. At times I may have not been as clear as I should have been.
every time I throw a rock into the ocean it rises!...but don't panic!...it's going to be okay!
Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:
the grand inquisitor wrote:It is accurate to say that Earth was no warmer in 2013 than it was 15 years prior to that.
It is inaccurate to say that "the Earth has not warmed in 15 years".
But I doubt you can comprehend the difference and you will keep spewing the same falsities.
Not at all. I have said repeatedly that the Earth's temp in 2013 is no higher than in 1998. I have also said that, despite annual increases at times, the Earth's global Temp in 1998 was higher than in 2013. At times I may have not been as clear as I should have been.
I quoted you above. You had said that it meant that "the Earth hasn't warmed in almost 2 decades" which is false. For someone who wants to argue semantics that one should say "since 1880" instead of "on record", this should be a very obvious and important difference.
Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:
stats on stats wrote:[quote]Sally Vixxxxxens wrote:
[quote]p.n. wrote:
So your contention is that data from two years (1998 and 2013) is more pertinent than that of 130+ years?
Actually, no. My contention is to focus on 135 years ("on record") is outrageous considering the Earth is 4.6 billion years.
Hahaha, yet you keep bringing up 2013 vs 1998. How is 2 years of data worth even typing out if 135 isn't sufficient?!
To focus on either 1998 and 2013 or ~130 years of reporting is incredibly ridiculous. That's why climate scientists gather ice core data that goes back hundreds of millenia ago. It amazes me how short-sighted people are. "oh, I'm an expert because I read somewhere that someone said something about something or other." Nobody really takes the time to do solid research on a topic before presenting a case anymore.
You want to stake a claim? Back it up with evidence not present in the media. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure, but get real facts and real evidence. When it comes to weather, read day-to-day forecasts. To look at short term weather patterns, look for seasonal shifts within a region. When it comes to climate (global climate), conduct research that goes way beyond the human lifespan - tens and hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Find empirical data that suggests temperatures fluctuate as a function of changing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Then you might have a compelling argument.
If you're feeling real ambitious, make a power point. I hear those are good for breakups.
While you hide behind your pseudonym...honestly!
This article is interesting. I like the idea of Mann's lawsuit for defamation to be thrown out, because he is trying to set a precedent to stifle opposing views through the courts. Dangerous ground, attempting to take down a blogger who wasn't defamatory, but working within the freedom of speech laws.
Mann has been caught trying to cover up data that did not follow his predictions. It was apparently "whitewashed" out of court, so everyone like to believe it didn't happen.
More dangerous ground.
It appears that the lefty, is being a little "righty" with is SLAPP-type suit. Censorship?
Disingenuous much?
A much too much?
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Given that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, in this thread someone said something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is just out to destroy capitalism."
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
Holiday Inn Expert wrote:
To focus on either 1998 and 2013 or ~130 years of reporting is incredibly ridiculous. That's why climate scientists gather ice core data that goes back hundreds of millenia ago. It amazes me how short-sighted people are. "oh, I'm an expert because I read somewhere that someone said something about something or other." Nobody really takes the time to do solid research on a topic before presenting a case anymore.
You want to stake a claim? Back it up with evidence not present in the media. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, sure, but get real facts and real evidence. When it comes to weather, read day-to-day forecasts. To look at short term weather patterns, look for seasonal shifts within a region. When it comes to climate (global climate), conduct research that goes way beyond the human lifespan - tens and hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. Find empirical data that suggests temperatures fluctuate as a function of changing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. Then you might have a compelling argument.
If you're feeling real ambitious, make a power point. I hear those are good for breakups.
In other words, throw out all the work of thousands of scientists who are dedicated to studying this phenomena and assume that you can then put together a compelling argument that will prove them all wrong.
That's pretty hilarious.