@bchad: since you seem to know so much about communist Russia, you would be surprised that the majority of the people loved and thrived under what was a relatively successful political regime from about 55-75. My parents still reminisce about what an idealic communist society would look like, how close the USSR was to it, and where it eventually went wrong. Also I would ask that you not confuse that I am talking about liberal ideals, NOT liberalism (please re-read my post carefully). Next, I am glad to see you have read the L3 curriculum or at least the behavioral portion. Kudos. Also, I was hoping that you would realize that I wasn’t talking about weatherman but meteorologists (i.e. folks with PhDs); I guess I was wrong. Also, I was hoping that you would realize that the part of meteorology that I was referring to was the part of predicting weather patterns shifts/changes on a more monumental scale than just daily or weekly (i.e. what we were initially discussing here, and not the broad set of all meteorologist PhDs); I guess I was wrong there as well though.
bchad: yea, yea sure if you want to trace back to Pascal feel free Pascal->Kant->Kierkegaard The point I was making in tracing to Kierkegaard (and Kant too) is the fact that he acknowledged that accepting Pascal’s wager meant that the existence of God could not be proven by reason. Which if we cleverly extend to this case as IU has done means we can’t prove global warming by reason, rendering it outside the realm of real science, forcing us to resort to scare tactics to make people “believe.” Yep, sounds pretty much like religion to me:)
PtrainerNY Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Can I ask you if more people die in cold or warm > weather? It’s cold!! Who are you to tell Russia > they can’t have warm weather. 
What would you tell India then?
IUKelley07 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Towards skeptics of human caused global warming: > > Are you absolutely 100% sure that the results of > human caused global warming will have minor or no > effect? > > Lets say on the off chance that your opinions were > wrong and humans do contribute significantly to > global warming and the effects are severe. > Hundreds of millions of people to billions of > people would have to relocate due to undesirable > climate changes. Would it be reasonable to take > some precautionary measures to hedge against this > risk? > > The IPCC’s current position is that the global > warming experienced over the last century has been > significantly caused by human activities. Even > with a collaboration of leading climate experts, > the IPCC position is not 100% certain; how is it > that skeptics can be so sure human caused global > warming is a “joke”? I have no problems hedging the bet. However, this religion that has sprouted isn’t about “hedging”, it’s about a fundamental shift in behavior while gleaning profits (cap and trade). How can you be 100% sure that the models are 100% correct? You can’t because they aren’t even 50% correct. Take, for example, the idea that temps would increase in the last decade, as predicted by all of these models. The temps didn’t increase, they DECREASED. Ohh naturally, it’s shrugged off as an oddity, while anything on the other side (increase) is taken as holy gospel. The IPCC is a joke also. It grasps at anything to keep its existence going, such as the glacier and other temp readings proven to be false. Climategate and Glaciergate are only the tip of the glacier. I am pretty sure there’s been tons of fraud going on. Still, as mentioned above, younger generations are brought up to believe this is 100% fact, without rationalizing the models, or the fraud. That’s my biggest problem, doubt has gone out the window and that’s what keeps people honest.
Pascal’s Wager makes sense. Maybe global warming isn’t real, but the question is can we afford to take that chance? I don’t think so. But the do-nothings here and elsewhere certainly seem to enjoy betting with someone else’s future. My wife and I recently had a child and I would sincerely like for her grandchildren to enjoy a planet that is environmentally similar to the one that I was born into. The planet will never run out of oil or coal, because at some point it will be more uneconomical to find and extract fossil fuels instead of, say, adding another wind, solar, or wave station. These natural resources will, of course, be around for several billion more years. It would seem to make sense to me that we develop power sources that employ those resources as soon as possible. From an American perspective, it’s even sillier. Until the status quo changes, I guess we’ll just keep buying oil from Saudi Arabia. But that’s no problem, because when we finally decide to get gung-ho over green power, we’ll just buy our solar panels and windmills from China. Sweet. Problem solved!
I can’t believe a bunch of finance professionals with little to no knowledge of science are debating the merits of Global Warming (or Climate Change, whatever you want to call it). This is EXACTLY what is wrong with American politics today.
As for Soviet Russia, I don’t claim to know everything about it, but that doesn’t mean I know nothing about it. And, if you recall, my comment was not about whether people loved the Soviet Union or not, it was about whether the structure of the regime was compatible with liberal values. You really do need to argue to the point, rather than throw mud in every direction and just see which of it sticks. There were plenty of Germans who loved the Nazi regime too. It brought glory and victory to the Reich (at least for a while), and it eliminated anyone that was unhappy with the regime, which would tend to skew the population towards supporters over time anyway. A large portion of Happy Germans does not mean the regime was consistent with liberal values. A large portion of Happy Russians does not make the Soviet Union a place that most liberals will want to emulate. And, quoting you, you started your analysis with “they are more predisposed to liberal ideas since they grew up under COMMUNISM!” Just because communists are on the left does not mean that liberals want communism or centrally planned economies. I suspect the Russians liked the Soviet Union because it was Russia, not because it was Soviet. They hated the Yeltsin years because it was inglorious and tumultuous, and Russia had lost status in the world, and they decided that all this democracy crap was the reason (which may or may not be correct; most likely it was problems with the question of how you handle the transition from a regime in which the state technically owns all property to a regime in which private individuals connected to the state own virtually all property). So, Putin steps in with a more authoritarian approach, but at least Russia is back to being “a contender,” and that makes many Russians happy today.
Who cares if its real or not? Buy a car with better gas mileage, use CFLs, reduce waste in your power consumption and recycle cans with deposits. It may help the planet, or it may not, but either way you’ll save a few nickles. Nothing to lose, a lot to gain.
bchadwick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > More heat, more evaporation, more precipitation, > more energy in the climate system, wider > extremes. > > Anyone actually do science here? > Uh yeah, I do. And I know for a fact that more energy in the system means higher temperatures. It kind of works that way.
king_kong Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I can’t believe a bunch of finance professionals > with little to no knowledge of science are > debating the merits of Global Warming (or Climate > Change, whatever you want to call it). > > This is EXACTLY what is wrong with American > politics today. Why? Because we don’t believe everything that is spoon-fed to us? I guess nobody but clergy or aristocrats should have opined on the earth being flat, or centricity, or gravity…etc. When it comes down to it, there is are tremendous amounts of money at stake here, from industry *AND* science side. This is *NOT* a 100% certain case, considering their models can’t predict anything at all. Blindly following incorrect models is fraught with problems.
Black Swan Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > bchadwick Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > More heat, more evaporation, more > precipitation, > > more energy in the climate system, wider > > extremes. > > > > Anyone actually do science here? > > > > Uh yeah, I do. And I know for a fact that more > energy in the system means higher temperatures. > It kind of works that way. Good, so you know what happens when you add energy to an oscillating system.
@bchad: “if you recall, my comment was not about whether people loved the Soviet Union or not, it was about whether the structure of the regime was compatible with liberal values” The Russian people were taught what Communism is supposed to be in schools for a long time before the agenda changed to a closer teaching of Soviet Communism was supposed to be. Hence, you statement above is incorrect. True communist ideals, as they were initially taught in the USSR, are very compatible with liberal values. Remember we aren’t just talking about whether Russian people liked the Soviet because it was Russia (as you say) they liked it because they, for a time, believed in what true communism could be. "You really do need to argue to the point, rather than throw mud in every direction and just see which of it sticks. " To which mud are you referring? As I have explained above your inability to dissect communist doctrine from politically motivated Stalinism/Soviet Communism that was a demagogic adaptation of Marx’s writings prevents you from seeing the country on a more microscopic level; i.e. you look at the USSR and only see what was bad (because this is all that local history books have to say) meanwhile neglecting the many good and great things about the USSR that had their basis in actual Communist doctrine and occurred and occurred on a more localized level and were never written about in Western history texts. Perhaps too, you are the one doing the mud slinging. I realize twisting the meaning of what I say is convenient to your argument but if you take a second and hear what I am saying you will realize that I am not arguing for Soviet Communism but rather for the Communism the Russian people believed in. Your suggestions that liberal wouldn’t like Soviet Communism is understandable, but then again this isn’t what I am arguing that they would like , so you have missed the point completely. I also realize these comments give you a way to sidestep the real issue here as well, the issue I was referring to when I said ‘they are more predisposed to liberal ideas since they grew up under COMMUNISM!’ Which is the fact that my folks believed in a system of universal healthcare, education, and support (liberal ideals no?). They are rational people and clearly they saw and understood the perversion that Soviet Communism eventually came to represent. All I was trying to demonstrate is their predisposition to true liberal ideas (as encompassed by true communist doctrine) in presenting their argument against meteorologists that they knew quite well. You instead choose to focus on the minutia and critique what I was saying on completely unrelated subjects, instead of taking for granted that yes Communism is synonymous with liberal ideals (maybe taken to the extreme, but nonetheless synonymous). If you can’t extract simple tidbits as this from what I am saying, and I am forced to have to go into lengthy diatribes to explain the most basic concepts how are we to have an argument? So please try to see my comments for what they are (not politically motivated) and take away their true meaning and will give yours the same respect and in turn we may actually have a meaningful discourse on the matter. So lets start again, how do you justify putting so much faith in models that aren’t too dissimilar from the ones we use to predict financial and economic phenomena and which have been proven to be extremely wrong on more than one occasion? I know you have already presented the Pascal’s Wager type argument. I respect this argument for religion and would never fault or decry a religious person. However, the reason I have no problem with it in the religious realm doesn’t transfer to the Global Warming/Climate Change. Primarily, the reason I have no problem with it in religion is because no one forced religion down my throat, or forces me to go to church. With GW/CC I may still be able to decide if I believe or don’t believe, to buy a Hummer or a Prius, however the prospect that over time I will face increased taxes, charges and/or other costs would imply that I am being forced to believe in this phenomena regardless of the fact that I do or don’t, and herein is my problem with the Pascal’s Wager-type argument. So, what other reasons would you propose?
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > She wrote me PARAGRAPHS upon PARAGRAPHS explaining > why anthropogenic global warming is proven and > that there is absolutely no debate among serious > scientists. From my limited readings and watching some shows I believe this is the main idea. Serious scientists believe in global warming and there are just a few no-believers that get as much as media attention as the serious scientists. Unfortunately you cannot remove the politics in this issue as policy changes are completly interlink to the problem.
ok davydov, I’m kinda tired of arguing, and somehow this discussion has spiraled out of control, so I’m happy to try and start over from square one, remembering that there are at least a few points we share in common, such as the fact that we both like using STATA for stats work. 
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > When it comes down to it, there is are tremendous > amounts of money at stake here, from industry > *AND* science side. This is *NOT* a 100% certain > case, considering their models can’t predict > anything at all. Blindly following incorrect > models is fraught with problems. There’s a tremendous amount of MONEY at stake? Life on the planet Earth as we know it could be at stake, and you’re worried about money? Humans living on this planet in the year 3010 will be appalled at how callously the people of 2010 made the decisions that impacted their generation.
Secondly, let me point out the facts because 99% of Americans are retarded and have no clue about this issue. It is documented that the world is warming, noone is debating that. We had an ice age some 8000 years ago or something and now the world is not covered in ice. That speaks for itself. However, we are also 99% sure based upon fossil records that woolly mammoths were not poluting the world’s atmosphere with their large SUV’s fueled by greedy capitalist agendas. The common explanation that is currently believed is that the earth has a slow oscilation (read: wobble) in its axis that causes it to go from ice age to smoldering to ice age again over say 20000 year periods. This is generally irrefutable. The argument being made and modeled by Gore & Co is that there is now an additional man made component that is causing this trend to accelerate caused by atmospheric carbon. The big issue here is not so much that carbon will raise temperatures, but that it will normalize them accross the globe. By trapping the heat the poles get warmer and melt, freeing up more gasses and replacing reflective ice with heat absorbing water, causing a bad loop. We can see this normalization on Venus (high carbon atmospheric content) where the night side remains warm and does not cool in the same manner as the night side of other planets. I actually do buy the natural global warming proportion. We do have enough historical data to support this. With the man made component, there are simply too many components (including many sensitive positive feedback loops) that make it impossible to accurately model in my opinion. As a result, we’ll have to rely on historical data to reach a conclusion and in my mind, 60 years of industrial production is simply not a large enough sample size. I also fully understand that one cold winter or one winter storm (large snow storms actually require warm air which stores more moisture than does cold air) does not undermine the existince of a long term trend. That being said, I have no problem with taking a proactive approach. I drive efficient cars and do all the green stuff because I hate wasting and I am in support of protecting our environment. I do take issue with using scare tactics to prod people into action. I also wish pompous environmental @ssholes wouldn’t ridicule those of us who want a larger sample size and more thorough scientific process before closing the case regarding the manmade component. If you’re wondering how I know all this, Larry Schweiger is my uncle. You can google him, he’s a big manmade global warming advocate with a great book on the subject called “Last Chance.” Chills with Gore on a first name basis. Needless to say, he vehemently disagrees with my perspective (although I consider it a fairly neutral one).
AlexP Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > From my limited readings and watching some shows I > believe this is the main idea. Serious scientists > believe in global warming and there are just a few > no-believers that get as much as media attention > as the serious scientists. Actually this is false. Government scientists who rely on grants (aka Michael Mann) believe in global warming. A whistleblower exposed their emails where these scientlists went after any scientist who disagreed with them and they manipulated the data. So serious scientist = serious about scientific fraud. There are numerous scientists who say global warming is BS.
AlexP Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > She wrote me PARAGRAPHS upon PARAGRAPHS > explaining > > why anthropogenic global warming is proven and > > that there is absolutely no debate among > serious > > scientists. > > From my limited readings and watching some shows I > believe this is the main idea. Serious scientists > believe in global warming and there are just a few > no-believers that get as much as media attention > as the serious scientists. > > Unfortunately you cannot remove the politics in > this issue as policy changes are completly > interlink to the problem. This is a key problem also, people like you limiting the scope of the scientific review process to only “serious” scientists and polarizing the issue between them and politicians. However, what you do not incorporate are the dissenting “serious” scientists that have been beaten into submission, effectively destroying the scientific process, giving a blank check to those who support the popular idea and ignoring those who don’t and the data contrary to the “fact”. You just keep sliding past the fact that these predictions have been proven false time and again, that the models are wrong, and that the IPCCs claims have been proven wrong, time and again. Climategate, Glaciergate, the temps in Asia, all prove that the scientific process has been trampled, thus, any “serious” scientist in favor of AGW, is doing nothing but jumping on the bandwagon. This is why I have such a hard time believing in AGW, because nobody is giving any serious thought to dissent, despite contrary evidence, and everybody is jumping on the bandwagon, taking everything at 100% face value. It is not how science works.
spierce Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > king_kong Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I can’t believe a bunch of finance > professionals > > with little to no knowledge of science are > > debating the merits of Global Warming (or > Climate > > Change, whatever you want to call it). > > > > This is EXACTLY what is wrong with American > > politics today. > > Why? Because we don’t believe everything that is > spoon-fed to us? > > I guess nobody but clergy or aristocrats should > have opined on the earth being flat, or > centricity, or gravity…etc. > > When it comes down to it, there is are tremendous > amounts of money at stake here, from industry > *AND* science side. This is *NOT* a 100% certain > case, considering their models can’t predict > anything at all. Blindly following incorrect > models is fraught with problems. I never said you should believe or disbelieve anything. In fact, I believe that skepticism is important. However, I think you (not you specifically, but generally) should have at least an informed opinion about something before spouting off about a certain subject. And for the most part, you can’t really have an informed opinion about Climate Change unless you are a scientist that truly understands this stuff.
@bchad: exactly, I don’t know how we got to discussing the nature of Communism in Russia by decade but it doesn’t exactly relate to GW/CC. PS Don’t take anything I say personally even though it may come off that way, its all in good fun. I get more intellectual stimulation talking through these things here than probably elsewhere (except for probably the chats with my folks) just because I can be completely straightforward and outright with my thoughts and beliefs, discussing them elsewhere with people you know/work with just doesn’t fly (I’m sure you can see why, since some of my ideas beliefs are somewhat outside the realm of the normal).