Posts by boustrephon 12 publicly visible posts • joined 6 Jan 2011
Dear NomNomNom, Thanks for the reminder on the recent Watts paper. I remember the fanfare in el Reg, but not the announcement of the withdrawal. Interesting. One thing I note is that these "game-changing" discoveries are rarely significant, and are often wrong. I look forward to the scientific debate on this, although sadly not in this part of the web (yourself excepted, of course).
www.skepticalscience.com - I think you will find that the models are actually doing quite well. Higher levels of CO2 are not the issue - it is the rate of increase of CO2 with our current climactic conditions.
Of course 1 degree on any one day won't do any harm, but if the average temperature rises, then it will affect thermal and chemical equilibria. One of the issues is whether melting sea ice will lead to a feedback. It seems fairly clear that this is so, although, of course, you never really know until it happens.
You sound a bit like the old supporters of Tobacco - never satisfied with any evidence because it messed with their lifestyle and worldview.
Hmm - I don't see how you make that connection. In the US, people complaining about the "warmist" position seems to me to link it with "liberal atheist scientists".
Incidentally, science was established in a society that believed in God, and religion has been under scrutiny for a while without fading away, so I am not sure that you point is all that clear. Of course, not all religion can be right, even the "scientific religion" that you appear to be complaining about, so some of your criticism of it is likely right.
So can we now agree not only that the earth is warming, but that it is following a curve previously accepted by most climate scientists, and used as the basis for study into causes for quite a few years now?
If so, then we can pretty much reject your vague assertions and conclusions...
Yes, there is a CO2 cycle, but this doesn't mean that it is stable or free of trends. We know that we have added CO2 to the atmosphere faster than this has ever happened before. This is well-documented and not subject to debate. It is possible and maybe even likely that processes exist or will develop that will counteract this over time, but in the meantime (at least in our lifetimes and those of our children and grandchildren) the increased levels of CO2 are trapping heat coming into the atmosphere faster than it can leave, and the oceans are acidifying. This is having an effect on weather systems and ecosystems, and sea levels are rising.
So, in response to your questions, yes, yes and yes. Your counter-arguments display a lack of understanding of the processes involved.
What a market is for (by your definition of a market) is irrelevant to this discussion. The issue is regulation of that market. Markets are permitted to exist under the laws of a country and are controlled to benefit the society. The discredited theory of free markets (as distinct from what Adam Smith defined) sya that no regulation will lead to an efficient market that provides the best solution for a society. This needs revisiting.
I think people are making too much of the government - capitalist dichotomy. After all, Columbus was funded by government, albeit with a bonus scheme (grab what you can for yourself).
Incidentally, I also think that these eminences grises are putting too much blame on the current government. Fighting unfunded wars and handing out un-budgeted tax reductions has to count for something. Not to mention the general willingness of the public to accept high levels of public and private indebtedness, without a thought for the future.
Yes, and then we can ask the hard-line atheists to show us the way. Welcome Kim Jong-Il, Pol Pot and Stalin!
The conflict is driven by "us and them" prejudice that is justified by quasi-religious arguments. The Law and the Prophets (Old Testament) include a lot of requirements to be good to your neighbors and to promote justice, and these are typically ignored by those who claiming the land. It was secular Zionists that started grabbing the land as a result of the indifference of hard-hearted secular countries such as the UK and US when faced with the gross persecution by a homicidal, anti-Christian (and of course anti-semitic) Nazi government... In other words, I think you are being a little over simplistic in your assessment of the source of world ills. I agree with your main point, however!
Badgers! because I am aware that I may be badgering a little... (nothing to do with Web 2.0...)
I in no way support Hamas' violent activities, but I think you may be forgetting the way in which the State of Israel was a bad neighbor by driving or scaring Palestinians out of their homes (see Deir Yassin) in what is now the state of Israel, and illegally blocking the return of any who had fled their homes and properties. At this stage the solution is not clear and cannot be imposed from outside, but to write off Hamas as a terrorist organization is missing at least part of the point.
This kind of retaliation is a clear case of an eye for an eye making the whole world blind (Gandhi).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
