Congressional Testimony: A Surprising Consensus On Climate 370
Lasrick writes: Many legislators regularly deny that there is a scientific consensus, or even broad scientific support, for government action to address climate change. Researchers recently assessed the content of congressional testimony related to either global warming or climate change from 1969 to 2007. For each piece of testimony, they recorded several characteristics about how the testimony discussed climate. For instance, noting whether the testimony indicated that global warming or climate change was happening and whether any climate change was attributable (in part) to anthropogenic sources. The results: Testimony to Congress—even under Republican reign—reflects the scientific consensus that humans are changing our planet's climate.
Lies, big lies, and statistics (Score:4, Funny)
Sadly there is no scientific consensus on whether this method of determining a consensus works or not.
100% Consensus among scientific organizations (Score:5, Informative)
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Concurring:
over 50 organizations including the Royal Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, etc, etc, etc.
Dissenting:
NONE
Re:100% Consensus among scientific organizations (Score:4, Insightful)
GOP Science Bill [sciencemag.org]
Yep, the GOP passed a bill requiring legislation based on science be open and reproducible. The DNC and the president, who promised to veto the bill, said there is no room for open science in legislation.
But, its the GOP that is anti-science....
Whats it called when you refuse to allow science to be reproducible and open. I think that used the be the platform of the Catholic Church back when Galileo was alive. Even the Catholic Church has modernized more than you and the DNC.
Re:100% Consensus among scientific organizations (Score:4, Insightful)
GOP Science Bill [sciencemag.org]
Yep, the GOP passed a bill requiring legislation based on science be open and reproducible. The DNC and the president, who promised to veto the bill, said there is no room for open science in legislation.
But, its the GOP that is anti-science....
Whats it called when you refuse to allow science to be reproducible and open. I think that used the be the platform of the Catholic Church back when Galileo was alive. Even the Catholic Church has modernized more than you and the DNC.
See you ran into a leftist with a grudge.
I love the way they support inconvenient truths, but go out of their way to bury inconvenient facts.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
the bills are a charade.
a troll.
like you.
it claims to be about promoting science but the reality is it silences it. they are fake plays at 'transparency' made in an attempt to hamstring the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and anyone else whose science their corporate owners don't agree with. there is a reason virtually no honest scientist actually supports those trolls of a bill, besides the fact that there is no such thing as 'secret science' anyway.
now collect your silver and be gone shill.
I enjoy your factual and well reasoned argument. You truly exemplify the intellectual prowess I have come to expect of the left.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of science is closed. One example is my right wing government who has layered on 7 layers of bureaucracy between the scientists and the public and in the end declared that all publicly financed science is protected IP that is under copyright forever.
Don't know where you live but in the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A work of the United States government, as defined by the United States copyright law, is "a work prepared by an officer or employee" of the federal government "as part of that person's official duties."[1] In general, under section 105 of the Copyright Act,[2] such works are not entitled to domestic copyright protection under U.S. law.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look, a troll talking about a troll bill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This bill is about adding extra, unnecessary work in an attempt to slow down and hobble the EPA, not about "open science".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So you prefer an EPA that is unrestricted and does not have to prove anything. Like we have right now? Secret Science? That's sad.
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't about "open data". It was about "Anti-science".
Re:100% Consensus among scientific organizations (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
That is probably true for many more issues than this, and not just for politicians. I don't think most people have really made the adjustment to the fact that in a democracy, their opinions matter, so forming them based on ideology - or even what's best for yourself rathe
Re: (Score:3)
Re:100% Consensus on WHAT? (Score:4, Informative)
It's probably a skewed result because half of the testimonies will have been selected by republicans because they are reject the mainstream science. This makes the finding even more surprising. For a more balanced view you can look to the statements made by scientific organizations.
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Concurring:
over 50 organizations including the Royal Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, etc, etc, etc.
Dissenting:
NONE
You are missing what parts scientists are well agreed upon:
1.The instrumental record, which spans about 100 years, shows a clear warming trend.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it's concentration will increase heat storage.
3. CO2 concentrations as observed for about the last 60ish years have been increasing.
4. Humans have been steadily contributing CO2 to the atmosphere for about the last 100 years.
5. The above points clearly are strong evidence that the recent warming has been influenced by human behaviour.
That about encompasses the consensus. 90% of everything that everyone is talking about though does NOT have a broad consensus and is still being actively studied, things like:
1.What quantitative relationship do our CO2 emissions have to future temperature change?
2. What cost is there to us from future temperature change.
3. What cost is there to us for reducing our CO2 emissions by a set factor.
Climate models are one of the key parts to answering these questions, and they are getting better at helping us study our theories on how climate works. Regrettably, the reality is that climate models still do NOT accurately predict or model global Top Of Atmosphere energy imbalance. One of the key tuning processes in model development is still adjusting loosely bound or poorly understood parameters, like clouds, to force a reasonable behaviour of global TOA energy. I hate to have to point it out, but long term predictions of climate, are pretty much entirely driven by TOA energy imbalance as it IS the entirety of the greenhouse effect.
Re:100% Consensus on the need for urgent action (Score:3)
You can read the individual statements of the science academies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) They go much further than simply stating that radiative physics is a real thing. Most state that the IPCC represents the consensus view and that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
I wouldn't expect a science academy to make judgments on the economic impact. For that you could go to economists: "There is a strong consensus among the top eco
Re: (Score:3)
You can read the individual statements of the science academies. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ) They go much further than simply stating that radiative physics is a real thing. Most state that the IPCC represents the consensus view and that most of the warming over the last 50 years is due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Thank you for confirming what I said. The IPCC's Fifth Assessment report is almost verbatim where my assessment of climate models came from. In Chapter 9, Box 9.1 the IPCC report states:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent
the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to f
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The win-win scenario is vastly increased investment into nuclear electric generation. Nuclear is already the safest form of baseline power generation, and is 100% carbon free. Next-gen technologies offer the possibility of less than 5 per KWH electricity, and no possibility of meltdowns. The world needs plentiful, non-stop power going forward. The ONLY carbon-free way of achieving that is nuclear power, and this can be done with no sacrifice, and no penalty to the poor via increased energy prices.
You could be right. My preferred option would be to let the markets pick the winners and losers. The key is to apply a revenue neutral carbon tax that ensures that any fees collected are spent in reducing income tax and sales tax. That way we are taxing behaviours that we want to discourage, and lowering taxes on things we ought to be encouraging.
The problem is that such a scheme is still regressive, at least here in the US. The poor pay no income tax, and there is usually no sales tax on food and other necessities. A carbon tax would raise the cost of energy, and if applied to gasoline and diesel, would increase the cost of goods pretty much across the board. Also, plenty of poor people would be hurt by higher gasoline prices.
If there were fewer artificial barriers to nuclear (including somehow educating the public regarding the actual instead of p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And regardless of whether there is a concensus or not, science is not driven by concensus.
Re:Lies, big lies, and statistics (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course not, but the consensus is driven by the science. That makes it a useful heuristic.
LOL, if it's being argued before congress it's being driven by money.
Ask Al Gore the king of carbon cap trading.
Ask the people made out like bandits on ethanol mandates.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Al Gore the king of carbon cap trading.
Ask the people made out like bandits on ethanol mandates.
You sound as if you don't like it when people turn their knowledge into money.
Re:Lies, big lies, and statistics (Score:4, Interesting)
You sound as if you don't like it when people turn their knowledge into money.
Knowledge not at all. Abuse of position oh yes indeed.
Then again maybe you think this was just honest graft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
A term so ridiculous it could only be coined by a democrat.
Re: (Score:3)
Good point. the consensus has been measured many times using different methods ranging from literature reviews to polls of scientists.
That's nice. I live in a funny kind of world where science isn't a matter of agreement so much as making predictions, then having them happen.
So when Hansen says NYC is supposed to be under water by now
http://www.salon.com/2001/10/2... [salon.com]
And it's not, that's fail.
When the prediction is for more and more intense Hurricanes and they don't occur
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w... [ucsusa.org]
That's fail.
So I someone with an agenda doing a survey, to determine "Consensus" looks like someone with an agenda that wants to use "Cons
Anarchy in Science (Score:4, Interesting)
The whole reason science in general works is because there are no leaders. Consensus means nothing. The only problem is that science can never discover the "Truth" (tm). The best it can do is come up with a model that has yet to be disproven. If there is no way to disprove it is faith not science.
Re: (Score:2)
Models aren't "proven or disproven", they're not found to be 100% correct or 0% correct, they're approximations. They can of course be tested by making predictions - which will also not be 100% or 0% correct. The only relevant question is, are the predictions accurate enough to be useful?
Your model of how science works appears to be a poor approximation, as science has indeed turned out to be useful.
Re:Anarchy in Science (Score:4, Interesting)
An important part of creating a model is listing your assumptions. Hence the Physics jokes about spherical cows. An important part of science is figuring out of those assumptions are general.
So Newton's model of gravity was incorret because we have proved it doesn't work in certain circumstances. So far General Relativity (unless I'm mistaken) is the best model we have so far because we have not found evidence it's wrong yet.
This doesn't mean Newton's model isn't useful as long as you are aware of the assumptions and their limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
Newton's model of gravity was incorrect
This is not a useful assertion, as you could say that about everything outside of pure mathematics. Newton's model of gravity turns out to be still quite useful, as it is mostly correct - good enough for most terrestrial uses. Likewise, we already know General Relativity isn't perfect either, but it's a better approximation, sufficient for most non-terrestrial uses too.
Most people are well aware that there no absolutes in reality (certainly most scientists), so declaring commonly-used models to be "incorrec
Re: (Score:2)
This is not a useful assertion, as you could say that about everything outside of pure mathematics.
That statement is logically incorrect. For if you were correct, then the above statement being outside of pure mathematics would be incorrect by its own assertion.
Plus the previous poster already granted the basic idea by saying:
This doesn't mean Newton's model isn't useful as long as you are aware of the assumptions and their limitations.
They already state why incorrectness matters - when you try to apply the model beyond the regime where it works.
Most people are well aware that there no absolutes in reality (certainly most scientists), so declaring commonly-used models to be "incorrect" or "disproven" does not advance the discussion - rather, it seems to more often be used in attempts to undermine the scientific case against the declarator's beliefs.
That doesn't mean the effort is invalid. To the contrary, it is more often a valid, scientific reason for rejecting the model in question. For example, a universal prob
Re: (Score:2)
That statement is logically incorrect.
It's actually mostly correct - which is my entire point. Few things are so black & white.
They already state why incorrectness matters
Limitations and assumptions do matter of course, but misleading usage of the term "incorrect" is the issue I'm referring to. Unless if by "incorrectness" you mean "the degree to which this differs from perfectly correct in all cases", in which case you could maybe try out the term "accuracy" instead.
To the contrary, it is more often a valid, scientific reason for rejecting the model in question.
I still feel you're arguing about something I'm not. To restate, declaring something to be "incorrect" because it's no
Re: (Score:3)
Actually nobody has made any measurement that cannot be accounted for by General Relativity. There is as such no direct evidence that it is wrong.
We assume that it is not the whole picture because we don't know how to marry it to the Standard Model and do calculations on the quantum scale. That could simply be because we are not clever enough to work out how to use it at quantum scales.
This is different from Newton's gravitational laws, which before General Relativity came along where unable to explain obse
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the Physics jokes about spherical cows.
Cows are not spherical. They are fractal:
http://mndl.hu/2008-02-01-frac... [mndl.hu]
Who needs consensus? (Score:2)
On this planet cultural ideology is the rule that all must obey.
The Five Steps of Climate Change Denial (Score:4, Insightful)
1) There is no such thing as climate change
2) Climate change exists, but it isn't happening now.
3) The climate is changing, but it isn't being caused by humans
4) The climate is being changed by humans, but we can't (or shouldn't) do anything about it.
5) We could have averted climate change, but it is too late now.
Apparently, we've just passed step 3. With step 4, expect a deluge of reports about how we shouldn't try messing with the climate because we just don't understand it well enough and probably will make things worse, or because any benefits from changes WE make will be lost because THEY following suit (for various values of "they", but most likely China or India) or because the potential loss of revenue to a few entitled mega-corporations is far too important to risk by imposing ecologically-responsible regulations. In short, the arguments will be that since we can't make everything 100% better, why should we make any attempt at all?
Climate change deniers will continue to be wrong until we reach step 5, when they will suddenly - and to all our misfortune - be right. We can only hope that the ecological mess they cause in the name of short-term profits won't be so catastrophic for the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
6) Make false apocalyptic claims about the end of the world. Then when proven wrong, make different, even more apocalyptic claims about the end of the world.
Re: (Score:2)
Making up strawmen actually falls within point 2.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The best economic estimates are that free market adaptation will cost a few prevent of world GDP decades from now.
Source? To my knowledge, while there is overwhelming scientific consensus that a certain amount of AGW has happened and will happen, there isn't so much consensus about the extent of damage it will cause. I've heard nightmare scenarios of worldwide dustbowls, wildfires, frequent hurricanes, dozens/hundreds of millions of migrants, wars over water rights, etc etc, and that's without even getting into methane gun territory. While there is no certainty any of that will actually occur, I don't think there is an
Re: (Score:2)
As much as Bill Nye was being unfair when he wouldn't consider the possibility that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
That's a combination of one through four in the aforementioned stages of climate denial.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, we're past step 5... but people are still looking for money to "solve" it while knowing (or should know) that we're already past the point of no return.
We just have to learn to adapt to Earth in the future, that's all.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate science, consistently misleading (Score:2, Insightful)
Many legislators regularly deny that there is a scientific consensus, or even broad scientific support, for government action to address climate change.
And this:
For instance, we noted whether the testimony indicated that global warming or climate change was happening and whether any climate change was attributable (in part) to anthropogenic sources.
There is an enormous chasm between these two ideas. Yes there is a broad concensus that we are changing the composition of our atmosphere and this should cause the planet to warm to some extent. *Alot* of sceptics agree with this. But there is no consensus on what the level of warming will be nor is there consensus on the idea that the changes are harmful/damaging to our interests or the planet or that an urgent mitigation based policy framework is needed. There is an enormous amount of
Re: (Score:2)
But there is no consensus on what the level of warming will be
You are right on this. There is no consensus on whether it will be bad or very bad.
nor is there consensus on the idea that the changes are harmful/damaging to our interests
If by "our interests" you mean the human race as a world, then you are wrong. The changes are definitely damaging, as a whole, even tough some individuals will obviously benefit.
or the planet
On the contrary, there is a consensus that the planet will be just fine with or without global warming, and with or without humans or even life. But that was never the question.
or that an urgent mitigation based policy framework is needed
This part is no longer the scientific debate but the political one. Obviou
Re: (Score:3)
There is an enormous chasm between these two ideas.
Not so much.
Yes there is a broad concensus that we are changing the composition of our atmosphere and this should cause the planet to warm to some extent. *Alot* of sceptics agree with this. But there is no consensus on what the level of warming will be nor is there consensus on the idea that the changes are harmful/damaging to our interests or the planet or that an urgent mitigation based policy framework is needed. There is an enormous amount of disagreement here, scientific disagreement, as there should be because honest truth is we do not know what impacts are likely to be and there are plenty of competing points of view, in literature on this.
We have extensive analysis from one side and moaning, conspiracy theories and lies form the other. If there is uncertainty, this means deviation from the best known predictions of likely outcomes, which are the prediction produced by science. If there is deviation, it is just as likely to deviate in a way that is worse than the prediction as it is to be better than what was predicted. That is what uncertainty means.
So we have:
1. Scientists, who are giving predictions, along with working and
Re: (Score:3)
Climate trolls consistently misleading (Score:4, Insightful)
The cost of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
Troll tactic #2: pretend that climate change is some theoretical even that will happen in our future, as opposed to something having drastic costs right now.
Record storms, droughts, floods, forest fires, and heat waves are costing hundreds of billions and tens of thousands of lives right now.
IOW: "we don't really knooooow, so lets not do anything!" Standard climate troll approach, going back decades.
Re: (Score:3)
The cost of mitigating climate change are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
That is your point of view. There is no consensus on this point of view. There possibly might be a majority, but there certainly isn't a consensus.
And where is the evidence to the contrary?
Let's put this in context:
In the 1990's climate deniers told us that the climate wasn't warming.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was because of the sun.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to gravitational lensing.
They were wrong.
Then they told us the warming was due to- hey look over there! It's a vast green conspiracy!
They were wrong.
Then they told us the slight dip in the rate of warming was magically a reset of t
Re: (Score:2)
there is no consensus on what the level of warming will be
nor is there consensus on the idea that the changes are harmful/damaging to our interests
There is an enormous amount of disagreement here, scientific disagreement
honest truth is we do not know what impacts are likely to be
None of the above is true - except about the precise numbers involved. The IPCC AR5 report widely surveyed the published studies to date, and shows very clearly and with "high confidence" that business-as-usual emissions will result in a temperature rise of 2 to 4 degrees. This conclusion is not disputed by any scientific organisation, nor are there any studies showing anything short of broad agreement among climatologists about this.
Likewise, the WG2 section shows with "high confidence" that many unique an
Not real science (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Does it actually help the problem in a meaningful way, or does it simply grow the top down authoritarian government?
For each proposed "solution"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pull your head out of Ayn Rand's zombified ass (Score:2)
Government has an overwhelming bias towards fossil fuel extraction. Solar City isn't raking in $40 billion each quarter in profits, Exxon is, and they hire lobbyists and former politicians. That's why Obama has opened far more land and sea for drilling than Bush, and spent years bragging that the U.S. is mining fossil fuels beyond it's capacity to transport them for processing or sale.
Anyone who repeats the "government-funded scientists are biased towards climate change" is a fool who hasn't thought abou
tragedy of the commons (Score:5, Insightful)
The climate and environment in general are a shared resource and nobody wants to be the one to hold back because they'll be the one stuck with the cost while everyone else reaps the benefits.
And unlike at the national level where a central government can FORCE you to pay for it collectively, the environment is a global resource and there is no way to enforce proper sharing of the resource.
Re: (Score:2)
^ This is correct...
How can one post to this... (Score:2)
Half will agree, half won't and all with legitimate insight.
Testimony, but was it heard (Score:2)
So all the testimony before congress was about anthropomorphic climate change.
Do you think it changed any congress critters minds?
Consensus (Score:2)
Science does not need consensus to find the right answer. Would we have waited for consensus about quantum mechanics and SRT before starting to use these theories, then we would just be starting to develop lasers, tunnel diodes and other things.
Sort the publications by the impact factor, and remove everything with impact 1 from your view. The you will remove the biased, paid for shit.
Eradicate that scum! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Consensus is not Science (Score:2)
Consensus is not Science.
Science is testing and Ockhams Razor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's easy. Congress, in general, doesn't believe what scientists say; scientists have no credibility among members of Congress. So it doesn't matter if there is a scientific consensus or not.
Re: (Score:2)
"scientists have no credibility among members of Congress"
So, to sum up what you've said, members of congress, in general, are idiots, at least when it comes to topics such as, for example, actual knowledge.
So now we just have to find out why people keep electing idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
We have found a consensus!
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. They do basically nothing useful, yet collect a paycheck bigger than most people in this country - and this without even getting into the whole selling your vote business. Meanwhile, we're funding said paychecks with our taxes. So, who are the idiots?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they do, but the point remains: most of them are getting paid for, at best, doing nothing, and at worst, engaging in blatantly harmful activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, the ice age is still on, in 3-10 thousand years (I think, it's been a while since I read the papers about it).
That will offer some nice relief from the warming that we're dealing with in the next 0-300 years.
So, both are true, And since you mocked both of them, that makes you twice an idiot. And sadly, I bet you vote.
Re: (Score:2)
No worries, the ice age is still on, in 3-10 thousand years (I think, it's been a while since I read the papers about it).
Only if the atmospheric CO2 level drops well below 300 ppm. Until that happens there will be no more glaciations (ice ages).
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you believe that?
(The science is still out as to what triggers re-glaciation from an interglacial)
Re: (Score:3)
On the contrary a leading theory of how reglaciation happens is because of ice melt in the arctic due to warm water influx. The Eemian had a "warm pulse" just before it plunged back into full glaciation.
See Late Eemian warming in the Nordic Seas as seen in proxy data and climate models (Born, Nisancioglu. Risebrobakken)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Exactly. Science is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on the rules of physics, they are what they are even if we agree with them or not.
Here's a few things I picked up while following the climate change debate. Windmills and solar panels are expensive and unreliable means to produce electricity. Because they are unreliable we need something reliable to back them up. Right now, with current technology and politics, that means natural gas turbines.
While natural gas turbines are cheap and reliable the
Re:Alert! (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Science is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on the rules of physics, they are what they are even if we agree with them or not.
However we have no way of getting to know those rules except through a social process in which scientists read and argue about each others' research.
Trust me, if the majority of scientists hadn't agreed on Newton's laws of motions you'd never have heard of him. Of course then we wouldn't be having this technology-mediated conversation; we'd probably be throwing rocks at each other instead.
People that believe we should reduce carbon output and also believe that nuclear power will kill us all are rejecting science twice over.
Disproof by counterexample: me. I think we should reduce carbon output and I think nuclear power could be useful, provided that plant developers post a bond to cover the decommissioning costs. I won't bother to address your point about wind power, but I do recommend you take the the drive from Los Angeles to Palm Springs sometime. You might find it enlightening.
A true scientist would admit we know very little about the environment. Anyone that says they've solved the equation is either delusional or trying to sell something. I'm not buying.
And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Just because scientists don't know *everything* doesn't mean they know *nothing*, or that they don't know enough to have a more informed opinion than a layman.
Re: Alert! (Score:2, Interesting)
If I can't confirm it for myself, it isn't science. That limitation can be annoying to people who think they know everything, but nevertheless, that's what science is.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet that for practical purposes you can't personally confirm general relativity, RNA to DNA reverse transcription, the role of the Coriolis effect in the formation of seasonal thermoclines in the ocean, or the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy. It doesn't mean those things aren't science.
"I can't confirm it" isn't the same as "I am unable or unwilling to put the effort it would take."
Re: Alert! (Score:5, Insightful)
If I can't confirm it for myself, it isn't science.
*FACEPALM*
Scientific results exists even if you personally cannot confirm them. The point is that someone can confirm them, and does.
Can you personally confirm that electrons exist? Probably not, because you haven't actually seen one. But there is a great body of evidence that supports the existence of electrons. Therefore, I accept that they exist.
Can you personally confirm that the Pope exists? Probably not, because you haven't actually met him. But there is a great body of evidence that supports the existence of the Pope. Therefore, I accept that he exists.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific results exists even if you personally cannot confirm them. The point is that someone can confirm them, and does.
And the obvious rebuttal is a whole lot of people can confirm their invisible sky gods.
Can you personally confirm that electrons exist?
[...] Can you personally confirm that the Pope exists?
The answer is that yes, he can do that.
Re: (Score:2)
A fee for decommissioning is imposed on each kWh of electricity sent out by domestic nuclear plants. We're not exactly sure how much it should be, since most plants are still operating, but the mechanism is there.
Consensus on what? (Score:3)
Exactly. Science is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on the rules of physics, they are what they are even if we agree with them or not.
However we have no way of getting to know those rules except through a social process in which scientists read and argue about each others' research.
Trust me, if the majority of scientists hadn't agreed on Newton's laws of motions you'd never have heard of him.
What everybody relying on 'consensus' seems to be missing is what parts scientists are well agreed upon:
1.The instrumental record, which spans about 100 years, shows a clear warming trend.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing it's concentration will increase heat storage.
3. CO2 concentrations as observed for about the last 60ish years have been increasing.
4. Humans have been steadily contributing CO2 to the atmosphere for about the last 100 years.
5. The above points clearly are strong evidence that the
Re:Alert! (Score:4, Funny)
The "consensus" of scientists was pretty clear on that whole phlogiston thing for a while, wasn't it... and then on the whole "caloric" thing that replaced it.
Right, but the astrologers have been consistent all along.
Re:Watermelons! (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got it exactly backwards. If people with private/corporate power didn't act like selfish dicks a lot of the time, maybe we wouldn't need as much government.
And maybe we wouldn't be wiping out species and ecosystems at 100 to 1000x background extinction rate, and maybe we wouldn't be warming the climate and acidifying the oceans.
If only. I'm an environmentalist because I know more about what's actually going on, from both a physical-scientific and sociological perspective, and it scares the shit out of me.
"Environmentalist" is also the wrong term, because it implies we are only concerned when it is going to affect us.
"Eco-system integrity advocate" would be a better term.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Or maybe note your American Exceptionalist ass uses 30 times the resources of some poor shlub in a developing country. Or that the United States produces a quarter of the world's pollution while having 4% of the worlds population - and that's not includ
Re:Watermelons! (Score:5, Insightful)
I I say that even if we had half of the government we have now we'd still have clean water, fresh air, clear skies, safe and nutritious food, and warm houses. How can I say that? Because generally people aren't dicks to their neighbors and tend to care about their children growing up to have children of their own.
What? Seriously, what?
I live in western PA, the land of strip mining, acid rain, and the Smoky City. Much of the countryside around here is still trying to recover from your idiotic companies who "aren't dicks to their neighbors". Guess what: when money is involved, many people are dicks to their neighbors, their workers, and their own children. Not everyone, but many people, And guess what; those people are the ones most likely to rise, scheme, and backstab their way into running large companies or other positions of power.
Things were getting better (not because of the EPA, sadly, but because it was no longer economical for big industry to exploit this land), but now the frackers are destroying the water table that most people outside of cities in this area use for drinking water.
Seriously, how can you look at history and believe that people are not dicks to their neighbors? We're humans. We don't care about far away people, but we HATE our neighbors. Have you read any history at all? We invented government specifically because it was the only way we could advance beyond tribes of 20-ish people trying to kill our neighbors. You think people can live well without government? Prove it; move to someplace with no effective government (Somalia is nice this time of year) and prove to us all how well they all get along.
Re:Watermelons! (Score:4, Insightful)
The reality called 'The united States prior to the EPA' is calling.
It would like you actually learn some history.
We -DIDNT- have clean water.
We -DIDNT- have clean air.
Add in history prior to the FDA and food safety inspections and you also learn that we -DIDNT- have clean/safe food.
80% of the surface waters in the US were unfit for consumption, were polluted from unregulated dumping of manufacturing waste.
It's -WHY- the Clean Water Act happened, and now you take that clean water for granted.
American air quality was then similar to China's problems now.
It's -WHY- the Clean Air Act happened, and now you take the dramatically cleaner air for granted.
People died from contaminated foods regularly.
It's -WHY- they started requiring the food supply chain to be inspected at nearly all stages, and now it's a big deal if someone gets sickened by an E Coli outbreak, yet the actual toll is usually minor, a handful of people, a tiny tiny fraction of what it was like prior to those evil regulations putting a stop to what used to be a common occurrence.
Your magical thinking that it all sorts itself out is blatantly ignorant of reality and our own nation's history.
You are a fool.
(also you apparently are ignorant of the definition of 'communist')
Re: (Score:2)
So I take it that you, as a paid corporate shill. are not going to be joining our post-industrial revolution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
Oh now I see...
https://stevengoddard.wordpres... [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Do you get all your climate science from a blogger with a bachelor's degree in geology?
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that's the "easiest" way, but I'll grant you it's one way.
The consequences for scientists who falsify their results is real and severe, even though it may not involve jail-time. They become pariahs and can no longer work in a field they spent years to train in. Peer review of publications goes a long way to reducing the chances of false results making it into the literature.
Re: (Score:3)
> The consequences for scientists who falsify their results is real and severe,
But often delayed enough to gather several years of funding, years during which many over-eager scientists scrape for vindication of their original claims. I'm afraid that several times in my career, I've worked with scientists whose initial findings were fundamentally false and refused to retract them. Publishing the truth turned out to be very delicate, because the groups whose data were clearly better collected, better cal
Re: (Score:2)
Yes because serious consequences actually stop bad behavior
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Perhaps you believe laws stop crime
LBJ on Global Warming - 50 years ago. (Score:2, Informative)
Pathetic (Score:2)
Repeating Zombie Lies doesn't make them true, it just makes you a bigger and more pathetic liar for repeating them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are young? The global cooling scenario was in news in the 1970s.
Re:Government flip-flop from the 1970s (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly. In the news. Not in peer reviewed scientific papers.
You know what else was in the news? UFOs. Bigfoot. Lassie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)