OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

[macsomjrr]

Naturally scientific consensus is the best source of information about the universe in the sense that it uses scientific method to prove some of its theories. But assuming that one should impliment policy based on scientific consensus without accounting for the fact that that same scientific consensus has a centuries-long tradition of mistake, foolishness, misunderstanding and outright falsehood is almost as ignorant as sticking one's head in the sand and hoping for the best.

So the scientific method is the best source of information about the universe. However, we shouldn't implement policy based on the best source of information about the universe? That doesn't make sense.

Or is it that we shouldn't implement policy decisions based on scientific information because there have been mistakes and dishonesty by scientists in the past? If you use that as a metric, then we couldn't use anything to make any sort of policy decisions, as just about any group has as much (if not more) of a history of mistakes, dishonesty, etc. as scientists.

Exactly. Scientific knowledge is the pinnacle, the peak, the absolute zenith of human understanding about our physical world. Metaphysics and spirituality are fine for personal decisions but when it comes to decisions that effect the lot of us we have to rely on the best scientific evidence we've got. Gravity effects you and me the same way, heck the laws of thermodynamics don't change based on what you believe. Faith or personal beliefs on the other hand are very personal things that affect each individual person in his or her own way.

[matthewk]

But you still need to understand what the data is telling you. The problem is that the science, or data, is not indisputibly telling us that we are the cause of climate change. A lot of the so-called scientists are making huge assumptions based on certain data. This in no way proves that their theories are correct. And that is a bnig problem. WHat you have right now are theories based on data, not proof.

[RobVarak]

Exactly. Scientific knowledge is the pinnacle, the peak, the absolute zenith of human understanding about our physical world.

Precisely. That is why science has been and shall always remain alternately wrong, inaccurate, imprecise, incomplete and misunderstood. Just because it's the best tool we have doesn't mean it's a perfect tool.

Placing faith in science, and particularly in the particular theories related to certain specific theories, to the degree that some do is as much a leap of faith and metaphysics as you'll see out of any religious zealot.

I am no luddite or religious nut. I stand in awe and admiration of man's scientific progress. But as a student and admirer of science, I first and foremost recognize the limits and failures of the science and its methods.

[JRod]

Exactly. Scientific knowledge is the pinnacle, the peak, the absolute zenith of human understanding about our physical world.

Precisely. That is why science has been and shall always remain alternately wrong, inaccurate, imprecise, incomplete and misunderstood. Just because it's the best tool we have doesn't mean it's a perfect tool.

Placing faith in science, and particularly in the particular theories related to certain specific theories, to the degree that some do is as much a leap of faith and metaphysics as you'll see out of any religious zealot.

I am no luddite or religious nut. I stand in awe and admiration of man's scientific progress. But as a student and admirer of science, I first and foremost recognize the limits and failures of the science and its methods.

As man progresses so does science. As science progresses so does man.

This whole point is about the science of global warming. Are there flaws in the data, probably, but are the flaws enough to wipe out the entire collective data to show man's impact on global warming. Probably not.

You can argue well science has been wrong so they are wrong about global warming, but that's one huge logical fallacy there.

[wco81]

If data isn't proof, what is?

[matthewk]

If data isn't proof, what is?

Depends on what tha data is and what ou are trying to prove.

Lets say your data is the Earth has been warming lately. How does that prove that it is because of us and not just part of the natural order of things?

A couple of eyars ago scientists were saying that part of GW was that we would see an increase in the severity and frequency of things like hurricanes and tornadoes. Yet this past year was fairly quiet with regards to these natural disasters. So there you have an example of data that was used as proof of GW, but was proven to be wrong.

[Rodster]

A couple of eyars ago scientists were saying that part of GW was that we would see an increase in the severity and frequency of things like hurricanes and tornadoes. Yet this past year was fairly quiet with regards to these natural disasters. So there you have an example of data that was used as proof of GW, but was proven to be wrong.

You don't mean Ike which devastated Galveston, TX or Gustav that caused $8.3 billion in damage and wreaked havoc thru the carribean or how about Hurricane Katrina.

[matthewk]

A couple of eyars ago scientists were saying that part of GW was that we would see an increase in the severity and frequency of things like hurricanes and tornadoes. Yet this past year was fairly quiet with regards to these natural disasters. So there you have an example of data that was used as proof of GW, but was proven to be wrong.

You don't mean Ike which devastated Galveston, TX or Gustav that caused $8.3 billion in damage and wreaked havoc thru the carribean or how about Hurricane Katrina.

I meant since Katrina. Once that hit I recall reading a numbers of articles where scientists were warning that those types of hurricanes were going to be the norm. Sure, there were couple of major hurricances, but that is the norm. There hasn't been the wild increase that some were predicting.

[Rodster]

I live in south Florida and I can tell you hurricane activity has been increasing as well as their intensity over the last 5-10 years and they are starting earlier. What scientist or weather experts have implied is not direct hits but more frequent and potent hurricanes and I agree with that assessment.

Here in Florida residents now take them seriously and evacuate were as just 10-15 years ago they were just ignored and people thru a party to welcome their arrival.

[Brando70]

A couple of eyars ago scientists were saying that part of GW was that we would see an increase in the severity and frequency of things like hurricanes and tornadoes. Yet this past year was fairly quiet with regards to these natural disasters. So there you have an example of data that was used as proof of GW, but was proven to be wrong.

I believe 2008 had the second-highest number of tornadoes on record (after 2004). There were more than 1600, and the average is about 1200.

[Naples39]

I live in south Florida and I can tell you hurricane activity has been increasing as well as their intensity over the last 5-10 years and they are starting earlier. What scientist or weather experts have implied is not direct hits but more frequent and potent hurricanes and I agree with that assessment.

Here in Florida residents now take them seriously and evacuate were as just 10-15 years ago they were just ignored and people thru a party to welcome their arrival.

The part of the story you are leaving out is that the 1970s and 1980s were quietest years of hurricanes in centuries (as best we can tell anyway). It may now just be getting back to the 'normal' level, but Floridians were lulled into a false sense of security because the 70s and 80s were unusually quiet.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05895.html

The record indicates that the average frequency of major hurricanes decreased gradually from the 1760s until the early 1990s, reaching anomalously low values during the 1970s and 1980s. Furthermore, the phase of enhanced hurricane activity since 1995 is not unusual compared to other periods of high hurricane activity in the record and thus appears to represent a recovery to normal hurricane activity, rather than a direct response to increasing sea surface temperature.

[Rodster]

My reply wasn't based on whether GW is real or not real. My comment simply states that in the last 5-10 years hurricanes have become more frequent and more ferocious irrespective of what took place 20-30 years ago and they are appearing earlier in the hurricane season..

[matthewk]

Interesting info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_hurricane

"While the number of storms in the Atlantic has increased since 1995, there is no obvious global trend; the annual number of tropical cyclones worldwide remains about 87 ± 10. However, the ability of climatologists to make long-term data analysis in certain basins is limited by the lack of reliable historical data in some basins, primarily in the Southern Hemisphere.[19] In spite of that, there is some evidence that the intensity of hurricanes is increasing. Kerry Emanuel stated, "Records of hurricane activity worldwide show an upswing of both the maximum wind speed in and the duration of hurricanes. The energy released by the average hurricane (again considering all hurricanes worldwide) seems to have increased by around 70% in the past 30 years or so, corresponding to about a 15% increase in the maximum wind speed and a 60% increase in storm lifetime."[20] Emanuel theorized at the time that increased heat from global warming was driving this trend. However, Emanuel's own research in 2008 refuted this theory and many others contend that the trend doesn't exist at all, but is instead a figment created by faulty readings from primitive 1970s-era measurement equipment."

"The number and strength of Atlantic hurricanes may undergo a 50–70 year cycle, also known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Nyberg et al. reconstructed Atlantic major hurricane activity back to the early 18th century and found five periods averaging 3–5 major hurricanes per year and lasting 40–60 years, and six other averaging 1.5–2.5 major hurricanes per year and lasting 10–20 years. These periods are associated with the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. Throughout, a decadal oscillation related to solar irradiance was responsible for enhancing/dampening the number of major hurricanes by 1–2 per year."

[FatPitcher]

And finally, Glenn Reynolds is an idiot. To expound on that, environmentalists don't need to take up a "crisis" mentality, because the whole idea is that if we act early and preventatively, we won't need crisis-type measures. It's the concept of doing preventative care instead of doing nothing, and then being forced to take radical measures.

No, he's not an idiot. He just has a healthy skepticism of politicians who want to take away freedoms.

Environmentalists are already busy scaring elementary school children with the idea that global warming is going to wipe out mankind. Where else do you see such speculative and inconclusive scientific research being propagated to young children? That's certainly a crisis-level measure, trying to influence children's future moral-political views through the education system. And the reason I say moral-political and not scientific is because children are not taught the science. They are taught the "right" way of thinking and behaving without giving them a factual, scientific underpinning. Children aren't taught about topics with similarly speculative and inconclusive research like dark matter and its possible implications for the universe because it has no bearing on the morals and politics that certain people want to instill in them.

Maybe you should also check out the loudest voice on this whole issue, Al Gore, and the official site for his movie. It's www.climateCRISIS.net. I mean, if he calls the website that, he probably thinks it's a crisis, right? Or am I just being an idiot like Glenn Reynolds? The title of DiCaprio's movie also implies that he thinks it's a crisis. And you can google "global warming crisis" and get hundreds of thousands of hits -- and many of those pages show environmentalists who think global warming is indeed a crisis.

I mean, given the statistical frequency with which doomsday prophets have been correct, wouldn't it make sense to firm up the science before chucking trillions of dollars their way and doing trillions more in damage to the global economy, increasing human misery everywhere on Earth?

[wco81]

I mean, given the statistical frequency with which doomsday prophets have been correct, wouldn't it make sense to firm up the science before chucking trillions of dollars their way and doing trillions more in damage to the global economy, increasing human misery everywhere on Earth?

Who's asked for "trillions of dollars?"

Where are these proposals which would cost trillions? Who's quantified that caps on emissions would cost trillions?

And which specific measures to cap or reduce emissions would cause trillions of damage? Is there some study showing these claims?

Let's see, it's going to cost trillions and also cause trillions more in damage. So the total costs are what, zillions?

Talk about speculative and alarmist. Who's trying to scare whom?

[Naples39]

Who's asked for "trillions of dollars?"

Where are these proposals which would cost trillions?

....

And these days, $150 billion for a global effort is chump change. That's about 1% of US GDP. The Sir Nicholas Stern report estimated the costs of combatting global warming to be 1% of global GDP.

[XXXIV]

and in China the laughter gets louder...

[wco81]

Who's asked for "trillions of dollars?"

Where are these proposals which would cost trillions?

....

And these days, $150 billion for a global effort is chump change. That's about 1% of US GDP. The Sir Nicholas Stern report estimated the costs of combatting global warming to be 1% of global GDP.

Again, who's asking for trillions of dollars?

Stern is saying that if we don't take action, the cost to global GDP will be more like 20%. He's laying out the comparative costs, not making specific proposals which will cost as FatPitcher implied.

Someone also alluded to govt. spending. No these "costs" are from things like lower profits for energy companies as reduction in emissions will involve reduced consumption of fossil fuels, or factories investing in "clean" technologies, which probably will be written off.

It's not the same as governments borrowing or printing more money to bail out banks. The govt. isn't going to pay directly for carbon sequestration. It might have to give tax credits and write-offs but it's not going to provide the capital.

[GTHobbes]

It was 71 degrees in Pennsylvania when I went home for Christmas last week. When I posted that it was 73 in Atlanta the week before, Teal contended that it wasn't unusual to see that kind've temperature in "the deep south" so late in December. I don't know about that, but I can tell you that I've never seen it so warm in PA the week of Christmas before.

Is it because of GW? Who knows. But why chance it when we have the opportunity to make changes that will only hurt certain select companies/industries.

[bdoughty]

It was 71 degrees in Pennsylvania when I went home for Christmas last week. When I posted that it was 73 in Atlanta the week before, Teal contended that it wasn't unusual to see that kind've temperature in "the deep south" so late in December. I don't know about that, but I can tell you that I've never seen it so warm in PA the week of Christmas before.

Well whatever you do, do NOT CLICK THE LINK BELOW.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/pbz/tdec.htm#Key

Dec 27 1904 70
Dec 28 1982 71

[XXXIV]

It was 71 degrees in Pennsylvania when I went home for Christmas last week. When I posted that it was 73 in Atlanta the week before, Teal contended that it wasn't unusual to see that kind've temperature in "the deep south" so late in December. I don't know about that, but I can tell you that I've never seen it so warm in PA the week of Christmas before.

Well whatever you do, do NOT CLICK THE LINK BELOW.

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/pbz/tdec.htm#Key

Dec 27 1904 70
Dec 28 1982 71

Chicago endures its 9th coldest December in 139 years
December 14, 2008 · No Comments
December’s opening week average of 21.8 degrees—more than 10 degrees below normal—joins two others since 2005 in being unusually cold—2005 (16.5 degrees) and 2006 (18.3 degrees).


http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008 ... ber-start/

[bdoughty]

Who's asked for "trillions of dollars?"

Glad you asked. You little buddy Al is asking for $5 trillion for his energy plan. T.Boone Pickens on the other hand is only thinking $1 trillion.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-com ... -plan.html

T.Boone is also the same nut job that spent hundreds of millions of dollars on some land near our farm, just so his buddies can pheasant hunt. What a swell guy. Just who I want setting up a plan for energy proposals.

[Brando70]

Where else do you see such speculative and inconclusive scientific research being propagated to young children

I believe the words you're looking for are "intelligent design."

[XXXIV]

Where else do you see such speculative and inconclusive scientific research being propagated to young children

I believe the words you're looking for are "intelligent design."

...Nicely played...

[FatPitcher]

Where else do you see such speculative and inconclusive scientific research being propagated to young children

I believe the words you're looking for are "intelligent design."

That's a pretty good comparison, even though "intelligent design" is not science at all. The goal with both is indoctrination, not education. If you're against one kind of indoctrination, you should be against the other.