billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
rushmc 23
billvon>This is what the science said until a couple of years ago.
No it's not. 15 years ago I was at an SDG+E talk where they were trying to plan their response for increasing drought brought on by climate change. (He made the point that even if rainfall didn't change at all, just an increase in temperature causes more drought.)
And you are seriously claiming that five, ten, even fifteen years ago, fights over water were nonexistent or not considered critical because "it was predicted for decades that rainfall will increase in California?" You're serious about that?
You can't just make stuff up to support your point. I suspect you wouldn't have much respect for someone who did this.
The whole AWG bs is made up!!!
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
GeorgiaDon 385
Quote[Reply]How can you justify changing "has been linked to" to "cannot be attributed as a causitive agent" and keep a straight face?
Because if they meant to say, "particulates from coal burning plants are causitive agents of pulmonary damage in 10% pulmonary patients living within 10 miles of a plant" then they would have said it. Instead of "been linked to."
So, why didn't they just say it's causative? Make a stand. "Been linked to" isn't falsifiable, is it? It's a qualified statement. Actually, if they included the reference to the study that established that "particulates from coal burning plants are causitive agents of pulmonary damage in 10% pulmonary patients living within 10 miles of a plant", that should be sufficient. If one has to include, as a phrase within each sentence, the whole abstract (or worse yet, the entire document) of every paper that relates to the statement, the document would become unintelligible. Perhaps lawyers do think like this, which may be why it seems to be impossible to generate a law that isn't 5,000 pages long.
"Normal" person: "Nice day, isn't it?"
Lawrocket: The sun being 5.347 degrees from the zenith, and there being only a few thin stratocirrus clouds in the sky that reduce insolation by only 0.4%, the ambient atmosphere has warmed to 82.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This clement set of environmental conditions, coupled with the unexpected favorable resolution of a case I had anticipated putting much work into, and the excellent latte I just consumed, plus the subjective notion that my wife is hotter than your wife, has resulted in a release of serotonin in my frontal cortex that has produced a feeling of well-being and satiation. Does your subjective experience correlate with this?
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Stumpy 284
Bravo!
Never try to eat more than you can lift
billvon 3,132
QuoteLawrocket: The sun being 5.347 degrees from the zenith, and there being only a few thin stratocirrus clouds in the sky that reduce insolation by only 0.4%, the ambient atmosphere has warmed to 82.6 degrees Fahrenheit. This clement set of environmental conditions, coupled with the unexpected favorable resolution of a case I had anticipated putting much work into, and the excellent latte I just consumed, plus the subjective notion that my wife is hotter than your wife, has resulted in a release of serotonin in my frontal cortex that has produced a feeling of well-being and satiation. Does your subjective experience correlate with this?
You forgot the disclaimers, the indemnification and the hold-harmless sections. You'd never make it as a lawyer.
GeorgiaDon 385
Somehow, that has prompted a release of serotonin that makes me feel so good I think I'll head home, light a fire in the fireplace, and pour myself a nice rum and coke.QuoteYou forgot the disclaimers, the indemnification and the hold-harmless sections. You'd never make it as a lawyer.
Lawyer! Me? (shudder!).
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
billvon>This is what the science said until a couple of years ago.
No it's not. 15 years ago I was at an SDG+E talk where they were trying to plan their response for increasing drought brought on by climate change. (He made the point that even if rainfall didn't change at all, just an increase in temperature causes more drought.)
Just an increase in temperature "can" cause drought. On the other hand, AGW theory predicts a net increase in precipitation worldwide. Some local variance is expected.
California has been variously predicted to be either wetter or drier. Initially as wetter (more ocean, warmer ocean water, increased vapor pressure and more onshore flow, etc). Lately it's been drier. I'm in the middle: wetter some years, drier others. The usual stuff.
[Reply]And you are seriously claiming that five, ten, even fifteen years ago, fights over water were nonexistent or not considered critical because "it was predicted for decades that rainfall will increase in California?" You're serious about that?
Not even close. Where the hell did you get this idea?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,132
QuoteSomehow, that has prompted a release of serotonin that makes me feel so good I think I'll head home, light a fire in the fireplace, and pour myself a nice rum and coke.
The hole 'seronntonnin' thing is made up BS!!!!
DanG 1
Issuing qualified statements is also known as professionalism. I very much doubt that you have ever told a client that you could 100% guarantee a legal outcome. And that's in a field where all the rules are already known and written down! I'm a structural engineer, a field most lay people think of as pretty cut and dried. I never make unqualified statements. There are always (!) caveats, assumptions, and limitations. There are some cases where I'm 99.999% sure that a component will not fail. Even then I must make it clear that my analysis is not a perfect representation of reality, and shit happens.
- Dan G
- Dan G
Yes. Unfortunately, my dealings have been with prospective decisions made by third parties. By its nature it lacks certainty. Not much science to it. It is chaos.
Versus science. "We've targeted you guys for the moon. With enough fuel, you may be able to get back here. You can survive reentry if the angle is right. And we may find you." Doesn't sound too scientific.
I hate lawyers. I don't want to see lawyering from scientists.
Note: I know in some sciences probabilities are the best that they can do. Meteorologists, for example, are comfortable with chaos. Even they do better than, "it can rain on Thursday." They are nice enough to give odds and probabilities.
Another note: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/global-warming-isnt-causing-california-drought-report-triggers-storm-n263941
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Versus science. "We've targeted you guys for the moon. With enough fuel, you may be able to get back here. You can survive reentry if the angle is right. And we may find you." Doesn't sound too scientific.
I hate lawyers. I don't want to see lawyering from scientists.
Note: I know in some sciences probabilities are the best that they can do. Meteorologists, for example, are comfortable with chaos. Even they do better than, "it can rain on Thursday." They are nice enough to give odds and probabilities.
Another note: http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/global-warming-isnt-causing-california-drought-report-triggers-storm-n263941
My wife is hotter than your wife.
wmw999 2,600
There's a difference between science and engineering. They use each other, but I don't think they're the same thing.QuoteVersus science. "We've targeted you guys for the moon. With enough fuel, you may be able to get back here. You can survive reentry if the angle is right. And we may find you." Doesn't sound too scientific.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
You make a valid point.
My point was that if scientists are busy saying what can happen, that doesn't say much. It's not like seismologists saying and earthquake can hit San Francisco. They say it will. It will be in the range of 8.0. We don't know when. Better figure out what to do when it happens.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My point was that if scientists are busy saying what can happen, that doesn't say much. It's not like seismologists saying and earthquake can hit San Francisco. They say it will. It will be in the range of 8.0. We don't know when. Better figure out what to do when it happens.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
billvon 3,132
>Versus science. "We've targeted you guys for the moon. With enough fuel, you
>may be able to get back here. You can survive reentry if the angle is right. And we
>may find you." Doesn't sound too scientific.
"You have a 88.2% chance of making it back alive assuming X, Y and Z." More scientific, and closer to what happened.
>Note: I know in some sciences probabilities are the best that they can do.
Agreed. Unfortunately some people conflate statistical uncertainty with "they don't know what they're doing" or "it's all a bunch of lies." You see lifetime smokers with this attitude - "oh, those doctors don't know anything; I could live to be 100. They're full of shit."
>may be able to get back here. You can survive reentry if the angle is right. And we
>may find you." Doesn't sound too scientific.
"You have a 88.2% chance of making it back alive assuming X, Y and Z." More scientific, and closer to what happened.
>Note: I know in some sciences probabilities are the best that they can do.
Agreed. Unfortunately some people conflate statistical uncertainty with "they don't know what they're doing" or "it's all a bunch of lies." You see lifetime smokers with this attitude - "oh, those doctors don't know anything; I could live to be 100. They're full of shit."
brenthutch 444
billvonQuoteSomehow, that has prompted a release of serotonin that makes me feel so good I think I'll head home, light a fire in the fireplace, and pour myself a nice rum and coke.
The hole 'seronntonnin' thing is made up BS!!!!
Whole
[Reply]Unfortunately some people conflate statistical uncertainty with "they don't know what they're doing" or "it's all a bunch of lies."
And as isure you are aware, still others find that uncertainty takes away from the message. It's the uncertainty. We hear all the time that the science is settled. This goes along ith the "uncertainty" argument - there is no uncertainty.
I'm one of those who agrees that, all things being equal, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the earth's surface and atmosphere.
I also am convinced that all things are not equal. I agree that warmer air can hold more water vapor than cooler air. It does not mean that warm air IS holding more water vapor than cooler air. This is because all things are not equal.
What does the future hold? We are uncertain. That's why I put some tests up there. Disastrous results would be demonstrated as probable if the things from my initial post show up. If they don't then the problem is not so severe, in my subjective opinion.
Question: what evidence would it take to cause you to believe that the problem is one in, say, the Top 5 risks to worry about?
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,175
lawrocket
Question: what evidence would it take to cause you to believe that the problem is one in, say, the Top 5 risks to worry about?
Ebola is #1. Ted Cruz told us.
Obama declaring himself dictator for life is #2. The GOP tells us that every day.
Being shot dead by a rogue cop is clearly #3 - read any newspaper
Becoming autistic from a vaccination is #4. The Internet never lies.
Eating GMOs and turning into a turnip is #5. I read it on facebook
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
So terrorism and those pesky gays aren't on the list? I thought corporations and high paid CEOs and college coaches were up there pretty high.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
kallend 2,175
lawrocketSo terrorism and those pesky gays aren't on the list? I thought corporations and high paid CEOs and college coaches were up there pretty high.
I know you read Facebook. You know what people worry about.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,132
>And as isure you are aware, still others find that uncertainty takes away from the
>message. It's the uncertainty. We hear all the time that the science is settled. This
>goes along ith the "uncertainty" argument - there is no uncertainty.
Of course there is uncertainty.
We now know that smoking causes cancer. The science is settled; I think you'd agree there. But there is no certainty. A doctor cannot say "if you smoke for a year you will be fine, but if you smoke for two years you will get lung cancer at age 52." He cannot say "and if you smoke for two years it will be an operable cancer, but if you smoke for three years it will not be operable." All he can say is that, in general, smoking increases your odds of getting lung cancer. (And emphysema, and COPD, and heart disease etc.) This is based on a huge amount of research, which is why we accept it as settled science.
We are at a similar level of understanding of climate change. The science is now settled. We understand the physics surrounding the retention of heat via the increase in greenhouse gases caused by anthropogenic emissions. That does not mean we can predict what the temperature will be in ten years. That does not mean that we can predict the date when we lose the last glacier in Glacier National Park. What we CAN say is that, in general, the future will be warmer due to our AGW emissions. And again this is based on a huge amount of research, which is why we accept it as settled science.
Often people who want to continue smoking without feeling bad about it deny the link between cigarettes and cancer, and base it on anecdotal or personal-incredulity arguments. I see the same factors at work in some deniers. But their denial doesn't change the underlying science.
>Question: what evidence would it take to cause you to believe that the problem is
>one in, say, the Top 5 risks to worry about?
To me? It will never be a personal risk for me, because I live in a place where we can spend spend spend to pipe water in from rivers 300 miles away.
To the US? I don't know what would make it a "top 5" but some big issues would be the loss of the last glacier in GNP (loss of something really beautiful) loss of cropland (ability to grow food) and loss of species (bad for the ecosystem.)
To the world? Rising sea levels are a big one since many places are very, very close to sea level. Changes in ocean circulation. Strengthening of storms. Changes in rainfall patterns.
And I very much hope we don't make the same decisions some smokers do, which is "well, I'll smoke until I get cancer - then I'll believe all the alarmists."
>message. It's the uncertainty. We hear all the time that the science is settled. This
>goes along ith the "uncertainty" argument - there is no uncertainty.
Of course there is uncertainty.
We now know that smoking causes cancer. The science is settled; I think you'd agree there. But there is no certainty. A doctor cannot say "if you smoke for a year you will be fine, but if you smoke for two years you will get lung cancer at age 52." He cannot say "and if you smoke for two years it will be an operable cancer, but if you smoke for three years it will not be operable." All he can say is that, in general, smoking increases your odds of getting lung cancer. (And emphysema, and COPD, and heart disease etc.) This is based on a huge amount of research, which is why we accept it as settled science.
We are at a similar level of understanding of climate change. The science is now settled. We understand the physics surrounding the retention of heat via the increase in greenhouse gases caused by anthropogenic emissions. That does not mean we can predict what the temperature will be in ten years. That does not mean that we can predict the date when we lose the last glacier in Glacier National Park. What we CAN say is that, in general, the future will be warmer due to our AGW emissions. And again this is based on a huge amount of research, which is why we accept it as settled science.
Often people who want to continue smoking without feeling bad about it deny the link between cigarettes and cancer, and base it on anecdotal or personal-incredulity arguments. I see the same factors at work in some deniers. But their denial doesn't change the underlying science.
>Question: what evidence would it take to cause you to believe that the problem is
>one in, say, the Top 5 risks to worry about?
To me? It will never be a personal risk for me, because I live in a place where we can spend spend spend to pipe water in from rivers 300 miles away.
To the US? I don't know what would make it a "top 5" but some big issues would be the loss of the last glacier in GNP (loss of something really beautiful) loss of cropland (ability to grow food) and loss of species (bad for the ecosystem.)
To the world? Rising sea levels are a big one since many places are very, very close to sea level. Changes in ocean circulation. Strengthening of storms. Changes in rainfall patterns.
And I very much hope we don't make the same decisions some smokers do, which is "well, I'll smoke until I get cancer - then I'll believe all the alarmists."
wolfriverjoe 1,523
billvon
And I very much hope we don't make the same decisions some smokers do, which is "well, I'll smoke until I get cancer - then I'll believe all the alarmists."
Wanna bet?
AGW is long term enough that most people will find "more important" things to worry about.
Short term survival will take precedence for a lot of the world. It does now.
Look at Hati - Short term survival needs have pretty much deforested their half of the island. So when hurricanes roll through (which they do on a regular basis) the flooding and landslides have gotten worse and worse.
So more and more people die.
Besides, human nature is to ignore problems until it's too late. Our optimism is one of our greatest blessings and one of our greatest curses.
"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo
kallend 2,175
www.scientificamerican.com/article/2014-officially-hottest-year-on-record/
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
The more accurate RSS data does not support this
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
No it's not. 15 years ago I was at an SDG+E talk where they were trying to plan their response for increasing drought brought on by climate change. (He made the point that even if rainfall didn't change at all, just an increase in temperature causes more drought.)
And you are seriously claiming that five, ten, even fifteen years ago, fights over water were nonexistent or not considered critical because "it was predicted for decades that rainfall will increase in California?" You're serious about that?
You can't just make stuff up to support your point. I suspect you wouldn't have much respect for someone who did this.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites