Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

To say they have no value would mean that any argument that they won't happen has no value as a scientific prediction. Any model that shows the climate cooling or not accelerating is subject to the exact same doubt you attribute to the hypothesis you consider extreme.

Since we can apply no probability to the extreme arguments it means we can apply no probability to any arguments. This would mean science can have no predictive value ever.

parados wrote:

To say they have no value would mean that any argument that they won't happen has no value as a scientific prediction. Any model that shows the climate cooling or not accelerating is subject to the exact same doubt you attribute to the hypothesis you consider extreme.

Since we can apply no probability to the extreme arguments it means we can apply no probability to any arguments. This would mean science can have no predictive value ever.

No, you are wrong. The scientific evaluation of the predictions of the global numerical weather model, and similar models used to forecast doomsday global warming, is that they have no scientific value as predictions. This is the result of the sensitive dependence on initial conditions -- a mathematical discovery that was made in the mid 1960s and which led to the development of a larger more developed theory of chaos in the following decades. Not all mathematical models are subject to chaos. The conditions that can lead to it are now well-known. They are the presence of strong non-linear, coupled components and a parabolic structure among the dimensional derivitives (terms of art used in differential equations, each having very specific meanings).

Science does indeed have predictive value. That is precisely because it is careful enough to identify those areas in which it has none. This is one of those areas.

They have little predictive value in telling what will happen, but great value in showing what could happen.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

They have little predictive value in telling what will happen, but great value in showing what could happen.

Cycloptichorn

"great value" ??? I don't think so. The fact is the results are no more likely than a random guess. They have no predictive value -- none, nada, nothing.

I get your point about assumptions. I agree such assumptions may indeed be a useful starting point for such investigations as to possibilities. However, once you use these assumptions and plug them in to the same non-linear, coupled, parabolic differential equations and integrate to a future state, you simply get more chaos.

These are all intriguing possibilities and bear continued investigation. However they are most certainly not a sound basis on which to make such profound choices with respect to human economic activity and freedom.

okie wrote:

Foxfyre, do you sense that the tide is beginning to turn in our favor? The weight of scientific evidence is simply not heavy enough in their favor to keep their agenda rolling as it did 3 or 4 years ago.

You poor, deluded bastard.

Just remind yourself, blatham, that you love consensus. So if the scientific "consensus," turns against what you want to believe, remember, you love "consensus."

Evangelicals battle over agenda, environment
Global warming and other causes stray too far from battles on abortion, gay rights and similar 'great moral issues,' some leaders say.
By Stephanie Simon, Times Staff Writer
March 10, 2007

A struggle for control of the evangelical agenda intensified this week, with some leaders declaring that the focus has strayed too far from their signature battles against abortion and gay rights.



A new generation of pastors has expanded the definition of moral issues to include not only global warming, but an array of causes. Quoting Scripture and invoking Jesus, they're calling for citizenship for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare and caps on carbon emissions.

The best-known champion of such causes, the Rev. Jim Wallis, this week challenged conservative crusader James C. Dobson, the chairman of Focus on the Family, to a debate on evangelical priorities.

"Are the only really 'great moral issues' those concerning abortion, gay marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence?" Wallis asked in his challenge. "How about the reality of 3 billion of God's children living on less than $2 per day? … What about pandemics like HIV/AIDS … [and] disastrous wars like Iraq?"...

The public dispute began with the release of a letter signed by several men who helped transform the religious right into a political force, including Dobson, Don Wildmon of the American Family Assn. and Paul Weyrich of American Values.



When he preached recently at a conservative evangelical college, Wallis said, he was besieged by students furious at the Rev. Jerry Falwell, who recently described global warming as a satanic plot to divert Christians from more pressing moral issues, such as spreading the Gospel.

Don't mention the polar bears, Bush tells US scientists
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 10 March 2007

The Bush Administration has been accused once again of gagging US government scientists by getting them to agree not to talk about polar bears, sea ice and climate change during official overseas trips.

A leaked memorandum issued by a regional director of the US Department of the Interior states that officials within the US Fish and Wildlife Service will limit their discussions when travelling in countries bordering the Arctic region because of sensitivities about climate change.

The only people I know who find polar bears cuddly are either idiots or dead.

I do not trust the energy interests to behave differently than tobacco interests or weapons salesmen, that is, I do not trust them to act primarily in the public's interests. That they have funded many millions to hinder consensus and action on GW and its possible consequences, often covertly and through front groups designed to appear unrelated to those industries and interests, is not only a matter of fact, it is also completely predictable that they would behave in this manner. It is public relations and marketing for them.

It is not that these interests will seek to do harm, or even innocently but yet inevitably cause harm, it is that if such harms from their products or activities appear on the horizon, they will commonly act so as to suppress or denigrate this information on the prudent assumption that it might lead to a consensus (in government and/or public) inimical to their interests.

We have little reason to trust them in such a case and much reason (historically and logically) to distrust them and those who function as a consequence of their financial support. Nicotine levels in cigarettes are now higher than they were ten years ago. That's not a chance accident.

And the truth of it is, that I do not much credit several friends of mine contributing to this thread because of their ideological or partisan (or both) stances on government regulations and on their assumptions regarding the eventual certain benefits of 'free market' interplay.

On the other hand, I have little reason to discredit the consensus which has arisen in the scientific community worldwide on the anthropogenic factor in global warming along with the possibility of catastrophic consequences and good reason to presume those closer to the truth than the counter position (for the reasons above).

Arguments that this scientific community is motivated to find catastrophe where it is not so as to drive the "need" for their services is a transparent silliness. Why no equal concern regarding cancer or HIV research scientists? Surely they too must be driven by the same dynamics and thus must be greedy self-serving fear-mongers as well. And why do we not see a commensurate expansion in earthquake or asteroid detection or paranormal scientific activity with 'disaster inevitable!' campaigns?

There has been no shortage of either charlatans or hysteria in the matters of HIV & cancer. Many of the forecasts current in the late 1980s about the eventual spread of HIV have already been proven wrong.

It is not that these interests will seek to do harm, or even innocently but yet inevitably cause harm, it is that if such harms from their products or activities appear on the horizon, they will commonly act so as to suppress or denigrate this information on the prudent assumption that it might lead to a consensus (in government and/or public) inimical to their interests

I agree - more or less. However, you should also consider the subjective factors that infect the behaviors of protagonists on the other side of these divides. Everyone and every group acts to further its self-interest. That includes oil companies as well as environmental groups and individual professionals (and others) merely seeking personal advancement.

We have little reason to trust them in such a case and much reason (historically and logically) to distrust them and those who function as a consequence of their financial support. Nicotine levels in cigarettes are now higher than they were ten years ago. That's not a chance accident.

But your skepticism is asymmetrical and that induces bias.

The Hell's Angels, the south american drug cartels, emergency room nurses and the catholic church are all merely seeking personal advancement. They all are, in no other important sense, differentiatable. Their credibility is equal and their operations in the world are without significant distinction. Skepticism regarding any of these entities must be, to be unbiased, perfectly symmetrical.

There has been no shortage of either charlatans or hysteria in the matters of HIV & cancer. Many of the forecasts current in the late 1980s about the eventual spread of HIV have already been proven wrong.

26 Years And HIV/AIDS Continues Unchecked
08 Feb 2007

February marks the seventh annual observance of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day (NBHAAD). This national mobilization effort is designed to encourage African Americans nationwide to become more knowledgeable about the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infections and the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS) disease, to get tested to know one's HIV status, and to seek treatment for HIV/AIDS. African Americans represent an estimated 13 percent of the U.S. population, yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 49 percent of those currently living with AIDS in this country are African American.

"Special events such as free HIV/AIDS testing, town hall meetings, candlelight vigils and faith-based programs are being held throughout the country. However, we must do more to stop the spread of this disease," said Albert W. Morris, M.D., president of the National Medical Association (NMA).

Despite 26 years of dealing with the disease, HIV/AIDS continues to be a critical health crisis for African Americans. The NMA strongly recommends that everyone be tested for HIV because there are a significant number of individuals who are unaware that they are infected and have never been diagnosed. "What is most disturbing regarding this epidemic is that we continue to diagnose African Americans at an advanced stage at their initial diagnosis. These individuals do not receive the benefits from early treatment which can prolong their lives," said, Dr. Virginia Caine, director, Marion County Health Department (Indiana) and NMA member.

According to the National Center for Health Statistics 2006 Report, HIV/AIDS is one of the top ten leading causes of death for African Americans. In the same year, African Americans accounted for more than half (54 percent) of the estimated new HIV infections in the United States. "It is clear that African Americans have been ravaged by this disease," says Los Angeles physician and director of the OASIS Clinic, Dr. Wilbert Jordan.