There was a claim about "indicators of a consensus" versus "disagreement". I automatically deduced that these things just don't go together.
The only Cook I know it's some English pirate that pretended to have discovered Australia.
Any plans to get to the point?
I thought everyone knew [Australia] was "discovered" by a Dutchman (if we discount the obvious previous discoverers in proud European tradition).
Quote from: ersi on 2014-08-23, 18:15:22There was a claim about "indicators of a consensus" versus "disagreement". I automatically deduced that these things just don't go together.Did we read the same sentence? I'm pretty sure it said something like "despite consensus among scientists, the public mistakenly seems to think there is disagreement." I wasn't aware that saying "the public" is wrong about something or other is terribly controversial.
Quote from: ersi on 2014-08-23, 10:15:22Any plans to get to the point?Sigh. The point was made by what I said originally, which you then criticized (it now seems, for making a point)... I could "walk you through" my reasoning but, at the baby-steps you seem to require, it would take forever -- and there's no way I could avoid stepping on your toes.Of course, since your only interest is in trying to trip me up, I shouldn't be so mindful of your toes! But although I can stoop to your level occasionally I can't stay there like you can...
Too hard to tell simple things like this?
The papers evidence poor grasp of statistical reasoning; poor scientific practices; an unconscionable predilection to polemics, rather than argumentation; and politicization of science that probably should be relevant to government policies.
What more can I say, to someone who couldn't even get through a single paragraph without stumbling? Either take my word for it or forget about it; or (shudder!) read and learn enough to decide for yourself!
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientifc basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.Doran, Peter, and Maggie Zimmerman. "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change." Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union (2009)
In short, the questions don't address what advocates and advocate/scientists insist is the problem.
Briefly, you think the papers are blather, while to me it's curious how you overexpose yourself to blather and still manage to react to it, producing lots of blather in the process, mixed attempts to hide your true impression, trying to provoke it in others before you reveal yourself. Why not read something uplifting for a while?
What do advocates insist is the problem?
So, what do you think of the Montreal Protocol, now? Is someone cheating or was the science flawed...? Do you care?
BTW: Thanks for the tip about thelogician.net! I've just begun his Future Logic, which should be a lot of fun!
Advocates insist the problem is our carbon-intensive energy economies. (And, owing to the "selfish" ways of us humans, over-population...) Something must be done!
I think of the Montreal Protocol the same as of the Kyoto Protocol: It didn't get done. It didn't formulate objectives and commitments properly.
Quote from: ersi on 2014-08-23, 22:36:58I think of the Montreal Protocol the same as of the Kyoto Protocol: It didn't get done. It didn't formulate objectives and commitments properly.Ah -- let me stop you right there: You said quite recently that it was a model of good and effective environmental regulation; that it did, indeed, both "get done" and get done what was intended!
And your response to it?
the text really establishes neither consensus or controversy while it blathers about both consensus and controversy. Or was it disagreement.
The science should certainly continue; but we should not jeopardize our economies for the sake of unfounded implications.
And we certainly (and morally) can't ask developing economies to forgo their development!
There are so many protocols to remember. My main concern is the secret protocols of MRP.
What you call "our economies" means only the private interests of a dozen companies based at fossil fuels.Many countries in Europe have already shown how it is perfectly possible to change to sustainable energy without any adverse effects on economics very much the contrary.
That's the problem and the true reason why the USA are so adverse to the evidence about climate change.Someone would have to pay those economies and no one wants to do it. The "moral" you mention consists on exploiting them not to pay for them to jump to a modern energetic model.
With folks like Sang, everything is political -- so --
He's certainly in the habit of insulting me.
I don't give a f*ck about consensus, Cooks and whatever. Knowing what the scientists publishes it's the only way of knowing what actual science has to say about climate change.All the rest it's pure shit.
Page created in 0.129 seconds with 42 queries.