So then the literature actually doesn't matter, anecdotal evidence of looking at shit as you hike is much better?
You're a neuroscientist, or something like that. The authors of the papers you're reading know a little more than you about the subject matter they're studying. Not just data. They live in it. I have experienced it. I notice you didn't point out your experience with regard to it. I'm not sure what you meant by that. I can think of many explanations for northward migration of some species (so the evidence for this is the most important thing?) one of which is warming. I can also think of many reasons why warming would not result in northward migration, which probably influence different species in different ways.
Now you're coming around to my side. Different migration rates result in a fracturing of ecosystem cascades. That also results in weakened ecosystem services. |
|
|
|
Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes?
OMG! Animals are walking downhill because of Global Warming (or maybe cooling. Is it Tuesday?) How does the character of your statement show anything but your own resignation in this discussion? |
|
|
|
LOL!
Dig deeper.
Been there, done that. Took home the trophy for top debater.  Then how come you missed this one? |
|
|
|
Oh also, in that cited paper, they are trying to make a connection between trophic mismatch and climate. Why did they not measure the temperature or precipitation or whatever that could be a proxy for climate? These seem like cheap and sensible things to measure. Oh wait, they did do that but couldn't even come close to finding a relationship: To determine what abiotic conditions contribute to or
ameliorate trophic mismatch between caribou calving and
plant phenology, we used our nonlinear regression estimates
of the onset and progression of the season of plant growth.We
tested for relations between monthly mean temperatures and
monthly total precipitation, as well as average spring
temperature (the mean of temperature for the period March–
May) and total spring precipitation (the total of precipitation
for the period March–May). Weather data were obtained
from the station maintained in Kangerlussuaq by the Danish
Meteorological Institute. Although we recognize that
temperature and precipitation probably interact to influence
plant phenology and thereby trophic mismatch, the low
number of years of data we have did not lend themselves to
multiple regression analyses. Therefore, we report our results
as simple linear correlations. Throughout the paper their relationships have p values of like .12, .07, or near .05. Using real statistics ( bayes factors) and a prior of 50/50 chance there is a relationship here, this corresponds to a minimum probability there is no relationship of somewhere between 10% and 20%. Which is interesting, but even then says nothing about any relationship to the climate and defiantly does not belong in a news article meant for public consumption like the one you posted. And even so, warming will force habitat relocation northward in the northern hemisphere. I'm glad you're at least doing some reading. I don't see how that follows from my critical reading of that paper. It may not follow from your critical reading of the paper. However, I don't see how northward migration is dependent on one individual's critical reading of that paper. Can you explain to me why northward migration in the northern hemisphere would not naturally occur due to warming? Do you get out much? Have you ever hiked higher in altitude through biotic zones until you have gained the alpine zone above tree line? In doing so, have you observed the flora and fauna changes? What's the biggest altitude change you have experienced on foot where you can slowly and intimately observe the changes? You are wading into territory which may be beyond you. Examine your position, your goals, and your experience with the subject matter. |
|
|
|
Oh also, in that cited paper, they are trying to make a connection between trophic mismatch and climate. Why did they not measure the temperature or precipitation or whatever that could be a proxy for climate? These seem like cheap and sensible things to measure. Oh wait, they did do that but couldn't even come close to finding a relationship: To determine what abiotic conditions contribute to or
ameliorate trophic mismatch between caribou calving and
plant phenology, we used our nonlinear regression estimates
of the onset and progression of the season of plant growth.We
tested for relations between monthly mean temperatures and
monthly total precipitation, as well as average spring
temperature (the mean of temperature for the period March–
May) and total spring precipitation (the total of precipitation
for the period March–May). Weather data were obtained
from the station maintained in Kangerlussuaq by the Danish
Meteorological Institute. Although we recognize that
temperature and precipitation probably interact to influence
plant phenology and thereby trophic mismatch, the low
number of years of data we have did not lend themselves to
multiple regression analyses. Therefore, we report our results
as simple linear correlations. Throughout the paper their relationships have p values of like .12, .07, or near .05. Using real statistics ( bayes factors) and a prior of 50/50 chance there is a relationship here, this corresponds to a minimum probability there is no relationship of somewhere between 10% and 20%. Which is interesting, but even then says nothing about any relationship to the climate and defiantly does not belong in a news article meant for public consumption like the one you posted. And even so, warming will force habitat relocation northward in the northern hemisphere. I'm glad you're at least doing some reading. |
|
|
|
The Earth is warming though. There's not enough bad science to change that fact.
Citation please. Or it didn't happen. And if it did, blame the sun, not ManBearPig. What happened to global warming? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stmThis headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. LOL! Dig deeper. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.
I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help. I'll take that to mean that you're deciding your accusation is irrelevant and wrong. Thank you. Otherwise, my posts are public and you can attempt to demonstrate some truth to your claim. You can take it to mean whatever you want, but what it actually means is that I'd rather spend my time with more enjoyable pursuits than proving you to be an idiot when you do so well on your own. Another claim, now about me being an idiot. Yet you were the one who lent credence to the idea that the Colorado shooting was faked. See what I mean? Only an idiot would mistake skepticism as lending credence to a conspiracy theory. Dude, there's skepticism, and then there's blindness induced lack of common sense. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.
I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help. I'll take that to mean that you're deciding your accusation is irrelevant and wrong. Thank you. Otherwise, my posts are public and you can attempt to demonstrate some truth to your claim. You can take it to mean whatever you want, but what it actually means is that I'd rather spend my time with more enjoyable pursuits than proving you to be an idiot when you do so well on your own. Another claim, now about me being an idiot. Yet you were the one who lent credence to the idea that the Colorado shooting was faked. |
|
|
|
"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"
That's exactly the quote I was thinking of posting. Can I get a high-five? Search my body of posts and show me. |
|
|
|
Well for one thing that is a news article. The immediately obvious thing wrong with it is there is no assessment of error or uncertainty in the figures presented. Oh, it's a summary of scientific research, you say? Then follow up with the citations. Otherwise, I guess you can't judge it. Or correct me if I'm mistaken - perhaps you are qualified to judge. Demonstrate how. |
|
|
|
Oh really? If you say so. In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example? http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_MoveThat's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time. Most of your "points" are actually one point split out to three, four or more line items in some rambling attempt to make your list look longer. Several of them are not points related to global warming but simple tautologies. You also consider only certain aspects of situations without considering the wider context. Your agenda is transparent and your strategy crude. I don't care about how many items are in the list. I did that to show a chain of effect. Show the tautologies. You guys are coming up short in droves here. Nothing you said here makes your claim have any truth. Please tell me: how does a count of the items in the list make them untrue? You're engaging in deflection. |
|
|
|
Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.
I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help. I'll take that to mean that you're deciding your accusation is irrelevant and wrong. Thank you. Otherwise, my posts are public and you can attempt to demonstrate some truth to your claim. |
|
|
|
I don't imply that the well being of humans is unimportant, but that humanity is what you're looking to save, not "the earth." I just want you to be honest about it.
Ok, then I'll just link to this post when your fellow libertarians accuse me of wanting to wipe out the human race in favor of the environment. See, that's the funny thing. That's actually your stated goal. Well, not the entire race, just a whole bunch of us. That's why we laugh at you. You advocate killing millions to save "the earth," when what you're really trying to do is preserve the status quo, which is what keeps humans thriving. "We must slaughter humanity to save it!" Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes. |
|
|
|
I don't imply that the well being of humans is unimportant, but that humanity is what you're looking to save, not "the earth." I just want you to be honest about it.
Ok, then I'll just link to this post when your fellow libertarians accuse me of wanting to wipe out the human race in favor of the environment. |
|
|
|
Who knows, the whole thing is a mess. Either way my personal philosophy sidesteps the issue. We should strive to become more efficient and less wasteful anyway. And even if it was occurring governments should help by no longer artificially encouraging growth, not schizophrenically encouraging growth but also taxing it.
Amen to that. I think that would be a big mistake. For one thing, trying to be more efficient and less wasteful may leave us with less wealth and technology to deal with a species-survival threat. For another thing, what most people think of as efficiency is usually extremely inefficient. We may go to lots of effort to develop a solar infrastructure only to invent fusion two years later. Generally, you want to make major changes as late as possible so you have as much wealth, information, and technology when you do it. There is no advantage to having saved lots of a resource when it becomes no longer useful.
Not if we consider genuine efficiency and waste. A big clue is that if something costs more than you make back in savings, it probably is actually inefficient (as you suggest). Ethanol in gas for one incredibly retarded example. While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.
- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering
- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence
Some of these are predicated on warming to a degree which I claim hasn't been proven to exist. The other assumption is that such warming is all caused by human action and not simply natural cycles, some are wild speculation, some are not even caused by supposed warming. Some of these are not yet known to be long term trends (weather is not climate as we are frequently told). And of course, any possible benefits from warming are totally discounted (not that I am a flag waver for that but it should be noted). And exactly what proportion of new discoveries in the sciences are made from rooting out and analyzing obscure species and not from some goober in a white coat sitting in front of a computer anyway? We used to get aspirin from willow trees you know. Oh really? If you say so. In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example? http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_MoveThat's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time. Please go do this, and think about what the consequences really are of the last 50 years of science using a logical fallacy as its means of assessing itself. Think about what kind of social structure allows this to persist for over half a century: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127448.0Heavily studied and documented actually doesn't mean that much. It means something... it means that prevailing expert opinion is strong in that area. That isn't worthless, but it isn't anywhere near the objective "truth" that the romanticized scientist strives towards. What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article. |
|
|
|
- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering
- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence
Some of these are predicated on warming to a degree which I claim hasn't been proven to exist. The other assumption is that such warming is all caused by human action and not simply natural cycles, some are wild speculation, some are not even caused by supposed warming. Some of these are not yet known to be long term trends (weather is not climate as we are frequently told). And of course, any possible benefits from warming are totally discounted (not that I am a flag waver for that but it should be noted). And exactly what proportion of new discoveries in the sciences are made from rooting out and analyzing obscure species and not from some goober in a white coat sitting in front of a computer anyway? We used to get aspirin from willow trees you know. Oh really? If you say so. In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example? http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_MoveThat's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that constraining supply of a good stimulates technological innovation that overcomes the supply constraint.
Very concise and well articulated. There's also a lot of evidence that capitalism unchecked results in picking the lowest hanging fruit until its exhausted. It goes like this: 1. The resource might have many uses. It also may have many beneficial effects to the environment. 2. The resource might also have many future as of yet undiscovered uses. 3. However, it's only harvested for one particular use, wasting other possible uses. 4. As it diminishes in supply, its price rises, and more harvesters enter the market to capitalize on the higher market price. More technology and effort is applied to harvest it. 5. To use the resource, it undergoes an irreversible transformation. It's not like metal or water. 6. Unchecked capitalism harvests it until its gone or nearly gone. Collateral damage occurs throughout these processes. 7. Capitalism finally seeks alternative solutions, but the world is poorer, due to the benefits or future benefits the original resource provided or could have provided. Central planning is the way forward, comrades. It only failed before because it wasn't done right. This time we shall surely prevail! Not what we said. We said or implied constraints and/or regulations. |
|
|
|
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
This is false. Global extinctions have happened numerous times throughout Earth's history. You're not concerned about "all life on earth," you're focused on maintaining the status quo. "Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much. Of course, we're an adaptable bunch. I bet we pull through. Advocate this stuff if you want, but please be honest about what you want from it. Thank you for this hilarious post. First you apparently need to invoke singular events such as cataclysmic asteroid impacts or events so far back in geological time in environments so different from ours to imply the extinction event occurring now is not unprecedented. However, the extinction event happening right now is unprecedented. Context matters. And I doubt you're as educated on the matter as much as you dare think you are. But the really funny part about your post: "Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much.
You imply that the well being of humanity is not so important. Does not libertarianism support the lot of humans? I will forever link back to this post when you claim one of the following: 1. When you say I think humans don't matter as compared to the environment. 2. When you claim AnCap or libertarianism is all about helping people have better lives. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that constraining supply of a good stimulates technological innovation that overcomes the supply constraint.
Very concise and well articulated. There's also a lot of evidence that capitalism unchecked results in picking the lowest hanging fruit until its exhausted. It goes like this: 1. The resource might have many uses. It also may have many beneficial effects to the environment. 2. The resource might also have many future as of yet undiscovered uses. 3. However, it's only harvested for one particular use, wasting other possible uses. 4. As it diminishes in supply, its price rises, and more harvesters enter the market to capitalize on the higher market price. More technology and effort is applied to harvest it. 5. To use the resource, it undergoes an irreversible transformation. It's not like metal or water. 6. Unchecked capitalism harvests it until its gone or nearly gone. Collateral damage occurs throughout these processes. 7. Capitalism finally seeks alternative solutions, but the world is poorer, due to the benefits or future benefits the original resource provided or could have provided. |
|
|
|
Does this mean that If I find a large group of dishonest and/or incompetent libertarian thinkers than we can assign libertarianism to the waste bin?
If everyone was using the output of those libertarian thinkers as the basis for libertarianism, surely. Please show where Popper lied, falsified his data and hid his original results and methodology. Or pick another popular Libertarian source if you would. Claiming that Rand is a shitty writer doesn't count. You can't pick the libertarians or it is obviously an unfair comparison. I'm only familiar with the bottom of the barrel. (At least that is my charitable assumption) Read all about the Oregon Petition. It's all you need to know. Pay attention to the mimicry employed on the cover sheet. Then find the list of signers on the petition (purported to be experts on climate science), and then google their names to try and find published papers they've authored. Instead, you'll find what they really are. Of course, we could then proceed to Environment and Climate News, a rag published by the Heartland Institute, where the editor of the rag is a libertarian and analyst for property rights. Yes, property rights, not an expert on climate science, or any science, for that matter. Then there's the George C. Marshall Institute. And Frederick Seitz. Richard Lindzen. The Cato Institute. Look into what they publish, what their credentials are, who funds them, etc. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
