Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Comments

top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (281 comments)

I don't know, the survey isn't very good, and doesn't ask that would help understand what they are thinking.

The survey didn't occur in isolation. They are scientists. What do their published results say? Have they published any results? If not, why not?

Of course we can guess.

No, not good enough. That is not believable. This is not a smorgasbord. We are not "choosing a truth" that makes us comfortable. Where are the facts to support the theory "there is no recent warming trend"?

4 hours ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (281 comments)

Well, it IS true you can't help me,. Neither, apparently, can you help the thousands of scientists whom you say attribute the recent warming trend to something other than an increase in CO2. They apparently can't detail their findings: you apparently can't help because you can't even describe their findings at any level. What help are you? They apparently can't even put their hand up and say "here I am!" - you can't help because apparently you don't know who they are, you just believe they exist. Like unicorns.

You had an opportunity to articulate this alternate theory and you muffed it. I feel pity.

5 hours ago
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (281 comments)

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Do you understand the logical fallacy of "loaded question?" Look it up, because your question commits that fallacy.

No. If you want to convince me that this, simple, logical question is somehow "loaded", then by any means present evidence to that effect. But this is a weak argument, and you know it. You claim that these scientists attribute the present warming to some cause other than CO2, but you can't explain what that cause is. Is this true?

Is it also true that they themselves can't explain the present warming?

Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?

Can you link to this explanatory material?

yesterday
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (281 comments)

If a survey says 97% think there's been warming, then it means 3% don't think there's been warming.

And this 3% who think there has has been no warming. Have they any evidence to present to that effect?

yesterday
top

Study: Antarctic Sea-Level Rising Faster Than Global Rate

KeensMustard Re:unfair policy (281 comments)

So if a large proportion of these climate scientists don't think that doubling the atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause problematic warming what (according to them) is causing the current problematic warming trend?

Can you link us to some of their published works so we can see and understand the underlying mechanism, plus some detail of the research re: new and apparently lower climate sensitivity and the alignment of this sensitivity with the historical climate record?

yesterday
top

Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

KeensMustard Re:Global Warming? (273 comments)

I do believe (snip)

And should we be concerned about your beliefs? Why?

about a week ago
top

Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

KeensMustard Re:Global Warming? (273 comments)

So I guess all those scientists searching for the cause and the IPPC are just wasting their time eh?

Hard to make judgement call on the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and whether they are wasting their time, but I'd say it seems like a worthy cause - unless you meant the International Plasma Protein Congress (IPPC)? Or perhaps the International Probabilistic Planning Competition? or the The International Pastors' and Partners' Conference (IPPC)?

about a week ago
top

Numerous Methane Leaks Found On Atlantic Sea Floor

KeensMustard Re:Global Warming? (273 comments)

If anything, the models being wrong would make us MORE pessimistic and increase the urgency of action to prevent further climate change. Because if the models don't correlate to actual temperature then it is just as likely they will underestimate future temperature rises as overestimate. The view 'the models are wrong' is actually a pessimistic view.

about a week ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

I'm not drawing a damn picture for you. I

You are drawing a picture for me, because your refusal to answer a simple question paints the picture as clearly as an essay on the subject would do.

If you cannot see that people are skipping the cost of fixing global warming and opting to endure its consequences, then you really need to sit down and shut up.

Well, firstly, nothing you do or say is going to make me shut up. No amount of hand gesticulation will halt the growing wave of tsunami of community anger and frustration at denial. You imagine that our patience is infinite. It is not.

Secondly you seem to be confused about exactly what your assertion was. You said that the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting (thus contradicting Stern et al). To put it into slow words for the slow among us, this has nothing to do with the choice or lack of choice.

Now cite a paper or article that proves your assertion ( the cost of mitigation is more expensive than the cost of not mitigating and adapting), or do so yourself.

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

Reality proves my assertion.

You need to be more specific. Narrow your description of your proof down from "something, somewhere" proves your assertion, to an actual, verifiable and believable reason. Otherwise, your proof has all the credibility of a guy screaming "A Wizard did it!"

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

The claim I'm making is that AGW is hopelessly over-hyped, that climate sensitivity is far lower than scientists assert, t

I see. Then what is the actual rate of climate sensitivity to CO2? Demonstrate your estimate of sensitivity with reference to the climate record and allowing for differences in feedbacks.

hat's OK because 97% of climate models disagree with actual reality.

So in fact the impacts of climate change could be far worse than current predictions?

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

I do not need to cite any papers for a political and economical solution.

If you can't prove your assertion, it has all the credibility of screaming "A Wizard did it!"

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

No, saying a given theory is wrong is certainly not another theory.

Which is your claim: that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we should just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it. IF there is some proof that the theory of AGW is wrong, provide this proof (as published in a reputable journal) along with working. We're waiting.

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

To summarize - you can't cite a study because you know, conspiracy theory. TIme travelling zombie tyndall flits from school to school, making sure that no-one ever discovers that CO2 is not, in fact, a greenhouse gas.

Well, thanks for letting us know that a wizard did it.

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re: Transparent? (174 comments)

What thirty years?

You can't subtract 30 from 2014?

I seem to remember the way, prior to your memory, all scientists were worried about the coming ice age, with the coming droughts.

Yes, you probably remember waking up on Christmas night and meeting santa claus under the tree as well. You'll have to excuse my skepticism, but I'm disinclined to accept you lurid fantasies as a substitute for actual proof.

something about fewer sunspots transferring less energy to the earth.

Something something sunspots something something. Well, I'm convinced.

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

But that isn't what [denialists] are saying, is it.

Is it, or isn't it? If they ARE saying something else, this qualifies as a theory, which contradicts your claim that they are mysteriously right but nobody can explain why, and nobody can demonstrate the truth of what they are saying empirically or even summarise it, using, you know, words, and we shoudl just believe them. In other words, a wizard did it.

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".

You mean like "no warming in 17.5 years?"

Exactly like that claim.

To me its the supporters of AGW that need [snip]

Nope. Don't care about your ridiculous fantasies.

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

It doesn't matter if anthropogenic CO2 causes warming or not (although there has yet to be any empiracle evidence of such).

empiracle?

What matters is the costs with correcting it verses enduring it. So far, enduring it seems to be more cost effective than the plans to correct it that are being considered by governments.

Cite a paper that backs this assertion

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).

Do "denialists" have a theory?

Yes. In what sense is that not blindingly obvious from the sentence: waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different).?

Do "denialists" get much research grant funding? Does they even get published?

No idea. Do conspiracy theorists and wiccans get published? Perhaps if they would if they, I dunno, did science.

I get the feeling you've missed something very important across this whole debate and that its done some damage to your credibility on this issue.

What debate is that?

about two weeks ago
top

The Royal Society Proposes First Framework For Climate Engineering Experiments

KeensMustard Re:Transparent? (174 comments)

I should think that any geo-engineering attempt to reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to be on a massive scale - there will be plenty of time for the anxious to voice their concerns and present their evidence.

Besides, if anything I think we've been far TOO consultative through this process. We spent what? 30 years listening to denialists and waiting for them to produce some evidence for their theory (that anthropogenic CO2 does not cause warming unlike natural CO2 which is mysteriously different). This is probably 25 years too long compromising to an alternate hypothesis with all the scientific credentials of a guy screaming "A witch did it!".

about two weeks ago

Submissions

Journals

KeensMustard has no journal entries.

Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>