reality is subjective when we dont know what the truth really is.
Not true. NOt knowing something is an objective fact Re the status of that thing and/or those who seek to master the topic.
Quote:
ex post it will be clear but right now we still dont know
By the fundamentals of logic, we know GW is neither manmade or preventable by current technologies.
Quote:
For ex. there IS a causal mechanism that is well understood for global warming - more CO2, other things equal, will cause warming.
The data make clear that the planet can handle multiples of current CO2 levels with no adverse impact on weather. (See a graph put up recently Re water vapor being the real greenhouse gas.)
Quote:
The problem is that other things are NEVER equal so it ends up being a judgement call on incomplete evidence whether or not those other things do or dont outweigh the effects of CO2 per se.
Judgement calls need not be subjective.
And at any rate, we're nowhere near the point where we need to make such a choice.
Quote:
That is why people still argue about it.
I disagree. THe argument, such that it is, stems from all kinds of lies and massive errors which, several generations ago, would've been embarrassing to a science oriented high school student.
Quote:
On the evidence we now have either side could end up proving correct in the end depending on what new data we get and what new understanding that helps us achieve as to what is really going on
.
Again, not true.
Further, valid arguments start with a certain minimum of evidence. The Greens, the movement that never thought it would take off, btw, as the whole issue was ludicrous, have yet to put together a valid argument that even reaches the "maybe' stage, let alone one that merits further research.
If it wasn't for the thorough corruption of advanced levels of academia via Gov funding of education and research, the Greens wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
Quote:
As I have said, the existence of a known causal mechanism together with data supporting the correlations that mechanism would predict look to me like there is reason to worry.
Only if you take them out of context, making all kinds of rationalist projections that are, well, rationalizations.
Quote:
However, it is also possible that there is another explanation for those correlations (another mechanism, bad measurement, etc.) and if that is shown well then I will change my mind
.
The explanation is that we're within historic norms, and that there's been a warming trend for millennia. Furhter, far stronger correlations do explain the warming, Sun activity for one, many of which have the neatness real scientists look for when explaining phenomena.
Quote:
But neither side of this argument is clearly in the wrong,
I completely disagree. Those on the affirmative are most certainly wrong. Their arguments barely stand. So even if Man is causing GW, the arguments offered prove nothing.
Quote:
and being on one side other other doesnt make anyone stupid - It is just a different reading of conflicting evidence where the real truth wont be known until later on.
Again: being stupid isn't the only way to make a huge error. Further, It's clear that the hardcore Greens and their political patsies aren't interested in facts. They're more interested in bringing about their vision, no matter how off and unnecessary it is. (This is what rises to the top when fundamentals are ignored: statist pond scum.)
The "real truth" is a contradiction.
If we don't know GW is happening, by what right do we force people to do anything about it?
Last: as I've said before, the Left's metaphysics and epistemology, outlooks that mandate their politics, is what makes this argument so attractive to that side. And when presented with objectively valid arguments, all they can do is talk about how "since we don't know...," "nothing is objective...," "most people..." etc., forgetting or hoping the rest of us will forget that if you can't find an explanation for a hypothesis after billions of dollars and who knows how many man-hours of debate, chances are the hypothesis is wrong. (These methods, those at the core of so many Left positions, obliterate reason. The thing is that the one obliterating reason is almost always a statist and odds are "he either is or wants to be the state.")
(Mind you, there are antiGWers that fall on the right side of this pseudo-issue through the same errors and for the same motives as those that think GW is manmade.)
"For ex. there IS a causal mechanism that is well understood for global warming - more CO2, other things equal, will cause warming.
NO NO NO...that is for a closed system which the earth is NOT!! I do not accept your FIRST underlying argument and neither do many scientists."
Actually, I think we are agreeing if you read my next sentence. The mechanism I cite COULD cause global warming - when you say "in a closed system" I think you mean the same thing as I do when I say "other things equal". But we cant know whether it DOES until we better understand the totality of the system it is embedded in, where the subsystem of CO2 is not closed and other things are not equal.
In the larger picture, there IS something like a greenhouse effect going on that has been there since the beginning of time - the earth gets some heat from its core and some because it absorbs more energy from the sun than it radiates back (i.e. the atmosphere acts to some extent like a GH). The question here is what happens when you add more man-made gasses to the picture than have been there before. Some believe that it warms the world up. Some think not and would say that the warming is part of natural fluctuations. Others would actually agree with both and say that the natural fluctuations in history are themselves the result of gas mixture fluctuation caused by things like volcanic activity. Given that the current warming (if we are measuring correctly and it is actually happening) is within the range of what we have seen in the historical record it will be hard to "prove" one way or the other because we dont have historical records of all of the variables in the atmosphere we might imagine are important.
So where do I come out? Neither side can "prove" themselves correct because these are all statistical arguments and as I said above there will always be counterexamples to point at. So what to do? Well, that depends how worrying you find the warming that does seem to be occuring. If you are worried then try to do something - If not, then be happy. But even if you DO want to do something there is the issue that maybe nothing we do will make any difference anyway.
If I were a conservative (which I am not) here is what would be pissing me off. All of things that are argued as "solutions" to GH gas warming are things that have been promoted for decades for other reasons entirely. (e.g. put a tax on gasoline or energy more generally). A conservative could well come to the conclusion that the libs failed to carry the day with the old arguments and so are moving on to new ones in hope that these might work better. That would piss me off. On the other hand, if you are a liberal you would look at this and say, Well, there is one more good reason to do what ought to have been done 30 years ago, why dont these people get it yet?
What I think will happen (and I am a lib but also try to be realistic) is that the market forces will win in the end. When oil gets expensive enough (and it will - our demand is still pretty huge and China and India are growing at a very high rate and can be expected to continue for some time to come) then we will start to switch to other cheaper forms of energy. Given that the need to switch could be sudden and painful (e.g. some ******* closes the Persian Gulf to shipping) it would be a good idea to do research to look at the alternatives now rather than waiting.
And by the way for those who dont want the government involved here - I share the pessimism on government investment decisions - but as long as the alternative energy sources are still more expensive than oil the private sector is unlikely to put much money into it. There ARE models of government funded research that has yielded great commercial applications - look at NASA or the government funding of basic DNA research which underlies all the biotech stuff. The private sector is the only viable alternative for a healthy growth sector in the economy but as long as the profit calculation is the way it currently is, they arent going to do much. I think the govt. could do something like offer a million dollar prize each year to the 10 best energy inventions - THAT would get everybody out of their armchairs looking for new ideas or ways to commercialize things.
In the larger picture, there IS something like a greenhouse effect going on that has been there since the beginning of time - the earth gets some heat from its core and some because it absorbs more energy from the sun than it radiates back (i.e. the atmosphere acts to some extent like a GH).
Why is this the larger picture? Why are you dismissing these objections as out of context via that "larger picture"?
Quote:
The question here is what happens when you add more man-made gasses to the picture than have been there before.
Those that object to the manmade GW story are fully aware of the topic at hand.
Quote:
Some believe that it warms the world up. Some think not and would say that the warming is part of natural fluctuations. Others would actually agree with both and say that the natural fluctuations in history are themselves the result of gas mixture fluctuation caused by things like volcanic activity.
THis is the problem with the Left's method. It presumes that because people believe something, it's valid. What to do when opposing viewpoints have a following? Settle it via vote and/or fear.
The problem is that this obliterates reason.
(Funny: the founder of this obliteration, Kant, did it to save religion from science, yet it's today's alleged secular yet ubermystical Left that embraces the method. The substitution of the People for God as the final arbiter was Hegel's contribution, Hegel being the most quoted philosopher of the Third Reich.)
The truth is the truth and its stands as the truth no matter how many ways people find to interpret facts, set up arguments, structure the data, etc. All else, not matter how popular or politically expedient is wrong.
Quote:
Given that the current warming (if we are measuring correctly and it is actually happening) is within the range of what we have seen in the historical record it will be hard to "prove" one way or the other because we dont have historical records of all of the variables in the atmosphere we might imagine are important.
Sorry, brother, but this too is false. We have enough to dismiss the CO2 theory, which is all that's on the table.
Quote:
So where do I come out? Neither side can "prove" themselves correct because these are all statistical arguments and as I said above there will always be counterexamples to point at.
First, it's the obligation of those on the affirmative to find the data. The rest of us can't be expected to counter nonsense, 24/7.
Quote:
So what to do?
What Newton said:
Quote:
Civilized men do not entertain the arbitrary.
Quote:
Well, that depends how worrying you find the warming that does seem to be occuring. If you are worried then try to do something - If not, then be happy. But even if you DO want to do something there is the issue that maybe nothing we do will make any difference anyway.
But why you think the warming is happening needs to be substantiated/analyzed. And until you can show that you have reason to expect warming, AND can show actual damages to mankind over the next three to five generations, dramatic temp flux alone doesn't qualify, there's no way to justify government measures.
Quote:
If I were a conservative (which I am not) here is what would be pissing me off. All of things that are argued as "solutions" to GH gas warming are things that have been promoted for decades for other reasons entirely. (e.g. put a tax on gasoline or energy more generally)
And all those reasons are as off as the GW justification.
Quote:
A conservative could well come to the conclusion that the libs failed to carry the day
Nothing has been proven, and it's not possible to prove a negative -- how do these two facts nnot give you a moment's pause?
Quote:
And by the way for those who dont want the government involved here - I share the pessimism on government investment decisions - but as long as the alternative energy sources are still more expensive than oil the private sector is unlikely to put much money into it.
That's the market telling you something!
Quote:
There ARE models of government funded research that has yielded great commercial applications - look at NASA or the government funding of basic DNA research which underlies all the biotech stuff.
Same as above. If the market isn't doing it, there's a reason.
Further, the return on investment via NASA and any and all research is abysmal -- as a fund manager you'd be in jail for that level of return.
But look at all the lies and errors Re DNA, for example. It's being used to explain personality and behavior -- bypassing freewill l-- which is then being used to justify all kinds of legislation and wealth redistribution -- all while private entities are being crippled by this involvement and the People don't get anywhere near the benefits of those investment dollars if they were put to better use.
Quote:
The private sector is the only viable alternative for a healthy growth sector in the economy but as long as the profit calculation is the way it currently is, they arent going to do much.
So keep the disasters coming....
Quote:
I think the govt. could do something like offer a million dollar prize each year to the 10 best energy inventions - THAT would get everybody out of their armchairs looking for new ideas or ways to commercialize things.
It would be nice if the people on your side would put together the proof needed to substantiate the claim that Man is warming the planet detrimentally. Until then, this is just another example of the detachment and knee-jerk statism that defines the Left.
actually, whether the planet is warming and why is a factual/scientific question. It is only when you decide to have the government act to stop or reverse it that you get into statism. Hard to see where I am a statist though, if I am saying that it is going to be the market that settles this when oil gets more expensive.
Even so, you could certainly argue that my wish for the govt. to jump start research on alternate energy is statist. But you can bet that even if the civilian govt. isnt preparing contingencies for a sudden need to go to alternate energy sources, the military sure is. They know enough not to leave it to the market to formulate a contingency plan for what to do if some wacko sinks a tanker in the Straits of Hormuz. We might want to try to emulate this kind of foresight. It might be good insurance.
Even so, you could certainly argue that my wish for the govt. to jump start research on alternate energy is statist. But you can bet that even if the civilian govt. isnt preparing contingencies for a sudden need to go to alternate energy sources, the military sure is. They know enough not to leave it to the market to formulate a contingency plan for what to do if some wacko sinks a tanker in the Straits of Hormuz. We might want to try to emulate this kind of foresight. It might be good insurance.
Most of the big military equipment is nuclear powered, and then of course we have the strategic oil reserves.
__________________
What are you pretending not to know ?
Not to mention the oil STILL in Alaska and offshore that they won't let us drill for.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
I saw a kid pee on the sidewalk today.
Considering that his body temp is close to 98.6, and the ambiant today was 84, isn't he contributing to global warming?
More importantly... can I whack his no-toothed crack whore mama up side of her head?
__________________
We are not primarily on earth to see through one another, but to see one another through
Some people are like slinkies: not really good for anything... but you can't help laughing when you push them down the stairs
Would be cool.. but unfortunately the shielding effects of lead, polycarbonate and water are the same of a big reactor or a small one. The army tried a small reactor for deployment to remote locations with disastrous effects. My favorite nuclear power plant of all times however is used on the now stricken NR-1.. A truly amazing piece of engineering all built without direct congressional funding or approval! A reactor this size would fit nicely on a 60-100 foot trawler... No need for silly sails anymore. Not to mention when at the dock it could reverse feed into the grid and power a small city I've been waiting for it to show up on the government auctions sites but to no avail...
actually, whether the planet is warming and why is a factual/scientific question. It is only when you decide to have the government act to stop or reverse it that you get into statism. Hard to see where I am a statist though, if I am saying that it is going to be the market that settles this when oil gets more expensive.
Whether it is warming, why it's warming, can anything be done about it, should anything be done about it, and what that something is, are all issues of science. But when your thrust is, "I believe X, you believe Y, let's settle" in this context, you obliterate reason, which leads to statism.
It always amazes me how Leftists shy away from terms like Statism, Liberal, etc. Say it: you guys have no more faith in Man than the Religious Right.
Quote:
Even so, you could certainly argue that my wish for the govt. to jump start research on alternate energy is statist.
It's not open to argument: that position makes you a statist, particularly since not only is manmade GW nowhere near a respectable hypothesis but you're willing to mandate trillion dollar courses of action on a feeling/hunch, all along having no clue what a valid argument is. Sorry, but if you did, we wouldn't be having this exchange, you wouldn't constantly refer to popularity as proof, pretend to be a pragmatist, etc.
Quote:
But you can bet that even if the civilian govt. isnt preparing contingencies for a sudden need to go to alternate energy sources, the military sure is.
All we'd need to do is drill in the US for oil we have but can't access because others with your metaphysics and epistemology, your ethics, in other words, don't think twice of sacrificing Man in the name of bugs, caribou, whales, etc.
Quote:
They know enough not to leave it to the market to formulate a contingency plan for what to do if some wacko sinks a tanker in the Straits of Hormuz. We might want to try to emulate this kind of foresight. It might be good insurance.
First, it's the job of Gov to assert Rights and defend property. It's the people on your side of these issues that have made it impossible for the US/West to stand up to these thugs worldwide -- oil-robbing animals included.
Second, the contingency plan should be to drill for more oil where we know it is.
Third, government is not the way to set up a contingency plan longterm -- if anything, it's the huge obstacle to all of this.
I've been waiting for it to show up on the government auctions sites but to no avail...
