While every snow flurry or cool snap is often cited as evidence of the folly of “global warming” by critics, scientists at the NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies have released data showing that 2010 now ranks as the hottest climate year on record.
The combined land-ocean temperature readings from NASA’s Goddard Institute indicate that 2010 has surpassed what it identified as the previous warmest climate year, 2005.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data shows that 1998 was the warmest year on record with 2005 close behind. The findings have been released after another failure to reach a significant reductions in emissions in the Cancun summit.
Nations again refused to make the cuts necessary to prevent global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius, or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels by 2100.
This report comes with the disclosure that a top FOX executive ordered correspondents not to cite global warming statistics and to question the basis for climate change claims.
Source: Washington Post
Slartibartfast,
“I’ve argued that you are rejecting a view because it may not be meritorious while offering no alternative view with greater merit.”
“{M]ay not be meritorious” is the key. Didn’t we try that whole line of reasoning when it was determined that the world was flat? At the time, was anybody able to come up with an alternative view that had more merit?
“That’s all for me tonight. Goodnight.”
I’m glad you said it. I was getting ready to suggest the same thing. It might be a good idea to rent a movie from RedBox.
Enjoy your Saturday evening.
“I assume companies will pass taxes along to consumers as much as they are able to.”
Even monopolies will close their doors when the risk outweighs the benefits.
I’m not going to figure out how to implement a fix, until I’m convinced that any proposed changes would have a significant effect on the future. I’m not in favor of throwing other people’s money at a problem just because the “joiners” are convinced that it is the right thing to do.
Throwing my own money at it is a different story.
BBB posted:
I’ve never argued that it should be given greater value than it merits – I’ve argued that you are rejecting a view because it may not be meritorious while offering no alternative view with greater merit.
That’s all for me tonight. Goodnight.
BBB posted:
Slartibartfast,
“So you’re arguing that we shouldn’t base our decisions on the best available interpretation of the evidence because it might be wrong?”
No. I’m saying that the best available evidence should not be given greater value than it merits simply because it is the best available at the given time.
BBB posted:
Slartibartfast,
When I see a scientist use “vastly” and “astronomically” to sell his opinion on a blog, I don’t think it’s a stretch to think the same scientist would use the same methodology in order to obtain a research grant.
You’re giving me reasons to be skeptical, and then complaining that I am skeptical.
Scientist too often try to explain away that which they don’t know instead of just saying that they don’t know. I’m much more accepting of ‘I don’t know’ or ‘We’re still looking into that’ than I am to scientific obfuscation. Most skeptics are.
A convincing story about what is more likely is still not conclusive evidence that a theory is correct. It just means that you have a path to follow that you think will bear fruit.
I may have messed up with words again, if anyone read what I wrote earlier and deemed my writing to indicate that I regard the, or a, Supreme Being as infallible. I find utterly impossible and unintelligible any notion that any sort of “Supreme and Infallible Being” could possibly have created a universe in which vaporizing people (in such manner as described in the book, “Brighter Than A Thousand Suns” by Robert Jungk, James Cleugh, tr., Harcourt Brace, New York, 1958) would be in any way possible.
At the same time, I do observe that what some people experience as evolution may simply be a slow-by-contrast version of what some people experience as creation.
For the “Big-Bang” believers who also believe in the classical laws of thermodynamics, I have a simple question. If the Big Bang started the universe with minimum entropy and entropy has ever-after been monotonic-increasing, why were not the fastest semiconductor digital computers present in optimal state at the moment of the big bang? How did digital computers evolve through the increasing of entropy?
Quantum mechanics, as I fathom same, appears to me to allow for a supreme process of a sort, existence creating itself for want of anything that exists outside of existence.
With apologies to Alfred North Whitehead, might “process theology” be enhanced by allowing for process as a dance of possibilities (whatever has not happened), probabilities (what is happening) and actualities (what has already happened) without resorting to phantasms of a super-Santa Claus who teaches children to be dishonest?
Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629
BBB,
So you’re arguing that we shouldn’t base our decisions on the best available interpretation of the evidence because it might be wrong? And you’re saying that it might be wrong because in a very few incidents in the past (all of which have been rectified within the scientific community) consensus theories have proved to be incorrect? Even though the few, temporary mistakes made by using the scientific method are vastly outweighed (yes, ‘vastly’ is my opinion – I am justified in using the term because I do, in fact, hold that opinion) by the increase in our understanding of the universe that following the scientific method has produced?
With regard to ‘astronomically’: I occasionally use hyperbole – I’m sorry if this upsets you. That makes me feel really, really bad. What can I do to make it up to you?
BBB,
You’ve come up with a sweeping theory about a fundamental bias in science based on how funding for science works. However, have you looked into difference in how funding for different fields actually works? Does your theory even apply to evolutionary biologists?
Slartibartfast,
“it should be a pollution tax on any product sold in the US based on the amount of pollution inherent in its production.”
Isn’t any cost generally passed along to the consumer? When our electricity bills increase to the point that none of us can afford to heat or cool or homes, or even refrigerate our perishables, what effect is that going to have on the health of the citizenry?
Your solution is only viable when applied to goods that are not a necessity.
Scientists have been known to cause cancer in rats. It’s not the cancer or the rats that have caused the problem. 🙂
Slartibartfast,
“No, that just makes it astronomically more likely that evolution is correct.”
How did you arrive at the conclusion that it must be “astronomically more likely”? What permitted you to determine that it would be “astronomically more likely” instead of just being “more likely”?
“it tells us what the most likely explanation is given the evidence so far.”
Hasn’t that been the crux of my argument? I find that too many theories are based on far too little evidence. In order to get funding for more research it is the job of the scientist to sell his theory to the best of his ability.
Bdaman said:
“By imposing tariffs and trade restrictions that will cause a drop in U.S. GDP
Isn’t that what you proposed Dr.Slarti to cut CO2 emmisions.”
Although I didn’t reply to it, Byron’s last post on this topic convinced me that tariffs were a bad idea – it should be a pollution tax on any product sold in the US based on the amount of pollution inherent in its production. And I appreciate the substantive objection, thank you.
BBB,
Are you saying that it would be impossible for a Supreme Being to have made such a creation?
That type of rationalization is why Slarti said religion doesn’t play by the rules, even though it wants to butt its head into scientific topics. That rationalization works for any piece of evidence you don’t like.
J. Brian,
I thought your last post was well done.
J. Brian Harris,
Eden sounds great, but it removes so much that makes us “human”. Your view of a Supreme Being is that of one who is infallible. One that already knows the future. Mine acknowledges supremacy, the ability to create, but not much more.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au6CAoJiWQw&fs=1&hl=en_US]
BBB said:
“Are you saying that it would be impossible for a Supreme Being to have made such a creation?”
No, that just makes it astronomically more likely that evolution is correct. Science doesn’t prove things (that’s mathematics job ;-)), it tells us what the most likely explanation is given the evidence so far. And unless you can get God to pop by the lab to participate in some experiments, then ‘God did it’ is a theory that can never be scientific.
J. Brian Harris, Ph.D., P.E.
I think Free Willy has some the to do with that.