Global warming, skepticism, etc

[cema]

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

Disclaimer: I am skeptical of both sides. However, because the global warming side tends to be louder, and because it is promoted by the political types, I am normally much more skeptical about them than the other side.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/__shahaf/]

I wonder why 'warming' side is louder for you. In academics, I believe so. Otherwise, I do not see that anyone would do anything significant about this. In academia, though, they are using real data to show the recent trends, and this is quite assuring. I saw the data, too. Moreover, you do not want to play with a chaotic system, which is highly sensitive to inputs. This is the best described by:

лучше перебдеть, чем недобдеть

[cema.livejournal.com]

Наши ресурсы ограничены. Пока что, говорят, они уходят в основном в карман Гору. Но, конечно, многим хочется поучаствовать.

[http://users.livejournal.com/__shahaf/]

well, I do not know much about Gore's budget and resources you are talking about. I know about data, that's it. If we talk about how real the hypothesis about global warming and greenhouse gases, this is one thing. If we talk about where money goes, that's another. Separate flies from meatballs.

[cema.livejournal.com]

I am afraid the balls are made from the fly meat.

[http://users.livejournal.com/__shahaf/]

I do not think we are really looking for truth here. I think that you watch a TV and approximate how much money Gore's pocket has. However, this has nothing to do about the greenhouse gases hypothesis.

[cema.livejournal.com]

I think we are playing with metaphors.

I also think that we more or less know all the main arguments from both sides, and we can hardly think of new arguments that would sway us this way or that way.

[trurle.livejournal.com]

Сколько людей Вы готовы уморить голодом ради гипотез, убедительных менее чем полностью?

[http://users.livejournal.com/__shahaf/]

sorry I cannot reply in Russian.

are you kidding? are you a scientist to talk about validation of this hypothesis? did you look at this hypothesis seriously, or you just speculate here? I also have no idea why you talk about hunger.

[trurle.livejournal.com]

Нет, я не ученый что бы обсуждать методологии проверки климатологических гипотез. Я, как бы так выразиться, озабоченный гражданин, не уверенный в том что эти гипотезы в достаточной степени подтверждены что бы на их основе проводить политику радикального сокращения выбросов CO2.
Что же касается голода, то радикальное сокращение выбросов CO2 означает столь же радикальное сокращение производства и потребления, несовместимое с сохранением нынешнего населения Земли: сокращение уровня выбросов CO2 до уровня 30 - 40 - х годов прошлого века неизбежно предполагает и сокращение население до сравнимого уровня, пару - другую миллардов надо куда - то деть. Самый простой способ это дать им умереть от голода в ходе сокращения производства, но, вероятно, можно измыслить и другие способы.

[http://users.livejournal.com/__shahaf/]

Well, I do not agree with both. First, either you approach the hypothesis scientifically, or do not approach it at all. Second, about consumption, etc. -- there are technologies to make energy in other ways that just to burn something, the problem is oil/gas lobby. They have money to tell you that there are no other ways. Another thing is that sooner or later oil is gone, and the population will face the same problem, but it will be kinda late.

But going back to the hypothesis andd what Cema said -- those who support it are louder. Well, I do not think anybody hears them. This is a simple example -- consider LA, interstate, rush hour. What will you see? You will see 6 lanes of packed cars with 1 person per a car, and 1 lane HOV, which is not even full. So, who is louder here?

[ny-quant.livejournal.com]

Перебдение в данном случае очень недешевый проект. Поэтому более применима другая пословица: семь раз отмер, один раз отрежь.