The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
MIT physicist pwns the fuck out of all Libs re Global Warming,
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:57 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen |
 |
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:59 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:09 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:35 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:36 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:49 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:37 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:12 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 6:49 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:45 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:52 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:54 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:38 AM
Sorry about your pwnage. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:21 AM
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)
-----------------
American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change
"There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)
------------------------
American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)
-----------------------
U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change
"The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)
------------------------------
Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)
------------------------------
American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
"Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)
-------------------------------- American Geophysical Union The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate. ------------------------------------ European Science Foundation
"There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns. While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial." ----------------------------------------- American Institute of Physics "The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003." ------------------------------------------- Geological Society of America Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twentyfirst century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources. ------------------------------------- American Institute of Biological Sciences
In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement:[ The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases. ----------------------------------------- American Statistical Association "The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community." |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:27 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:36 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:03 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:10 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:50 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:27 AM
a) One needs to prove that the temperatures on the planet are rising.
We haven't, although some recent numbers suggest this, they are not even close to definitive.
b) One needs to prove that humans are causing this rise in temps.
Again even if assuming a), one cannot even begin to formulate a solid case that surpasses even elementary critiques.
c) One needs to prove that we as humans, asuming a) and b), can do something about this trend.
Again, not even close to being proven.
Do I think a) b) and c) are all true? I would say the odds are 20-30%, but they need to be atleast proven to a reasonable extent before I will willfully endanger my standard of living for "Green" efforts.
What I always love to leverage off of when it comes to Linzden is the data he pulled from NASA which shows NO CHANGE IN SNOW COVERAGE AT EITHER POLE between 1978 and now. What all these global warming "believers" (That is what they are, it is akin to a relgion) hold dearest in their heart is the notion of glaciers melting, snow and ice receding, etc. To just show them that this idea is factually totally wrong opens the door for them to realize that if that is a lie, what else is? |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:28 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:30 AM
The end result would be human misery. Also, China says Hai and would like you to tell yourself to go suck an egg |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:30 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:30 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:31 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:50 AM
Your ASA quote:
"The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community."
I cannot find the fourth assesment report, but the third shows a 0.4 degree increase from 1960-1991 average.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm
The below report as of 2010 shows the same increase.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/m/6/evidence.pdf
So the best you can muster is this? From organizations with a vested interest in propgating the climate change story. Are you serious? What is even worse is the ASA quote, even as it agrees with the IPCC, turns around and says "Look bro, you guys need more peeps with a better understanding of statistics". How does that make you feel about the validity of the claim? Remeber, we are talking about 0.4 degrees measured from thousands of data points across the globe. And these "statistical experts" are saying that the IPCC needs more know-how when it comes to properly handling this data.
Just do 0.4 degrees warmer than the average of 1960-90, bro.
|
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:01 AM
Are you even capable of digesting what a 0.4C change means? Have you analyzed the computational models from the meteorologists and climatology researchers and determined that they are faulty? Did you put your phD in atmospheric chemistry hat on and determine that 0.4C increase in worldwide entropy is not significant in the global climate system?
Ultimately any layman has to go with appeal to experts because neither you nor I are experienced climate scientists who are able to reasonably determine what the evidence means. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:09 AM
"The Earth's surface temperature is shown year by year (red bars) and approximately decade by decade (black line, a filtered annual curve suppressing fluctuations below near decadal time-scales). There are uncertainties in the annual data (thin black whisker bars represent the 95% confidence range) due to data gaps, random instrumental errors and uncertainties, uncertainties in bias corrections in the ocean surface temperature data and also in adjustments for urbanisation over the land. Over both the last 140 years and 100 years, the best estimate is that the global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 ± 0.2°C."
So let me get this straight, from a PRO-Climate Change organization, they admit that within a 95% CI, 33% of the change could be inaccurate? Do you understand that you need to be atleast 99% sure of the range of increase for a) to even begin to deal with b) and c). Do you realize that if you adjust for that, THE ENTIRE CHANGE IN TEMPS OVER THE LAST 140 YEARS IS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT?
Also, if these guys have such a large margin of error on measuring what actually has happened, how the fuck are you going to put stock in what they say WILL happen in the future?
All I ask is that you use common sense. I am not claiming GW does not exist, all I am saying is that we lack real evidence to suggest it does. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:13 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:16 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:16 AM
What is "incorrect" or demonstrates a misunderstanding of stats? |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:18 AM
ROFLOLOLOL
Assuming normality, 99.7% CI would be 0.6 +/- 0.3. But that's not even the dumbest shit in your screeds. As a dude who has to teach statistics to dumb undergrads, your posts are infuriatingly dumb. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:22 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:34 AM
Now onto your quantification. The big flaw is the normalization assumption. You cannot apply CLT when it comes to weather patterns. We have known this for a very long time. The tails are MUCH fatter. My +/- 0.7 was a guess and I admitted as much. You have the conceit to think that climate change can fit into a neat little box from which to draw the conclusion that you were looking for before you even see the data.
EDIT: I am sure you can find your own info re: climate and normal dist, but as a starting point:
http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/normalvariation.htm
The point is we already know from other weather patterns (hurricanes, etc.) CLT does not work. The entire climate field cannot be assumed to have normally distributed data.
I also love the blank post bumps that other morons make. Too stupid to come up with a criticism of their own, they jump on whatevr bandwagon appears to be rolling in the right direction. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:37 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:38 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:41 AM
This has to be the best schizo crank autodidact schtick this board has ever seen. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:51 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:39 AM
The CLT is agnostic to the underlying distribution, btw. Means or sums of independent variables asymptotically reach normality regardless of the underlying distribution you stupid shit. There are reasons you can't assume the normality of the temperature rise estimate, but that is not one of them. LOL @ the 0.7 you pulled out of your ass.
Seriously, just stop. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:58 AM
"95% CI's are the standard in climatology, genetics, and other sciences involving complex systems, fucktard. "
Yes, 95% CI is the most common standard in general (i.e. political polls, etc.), however, for the purposes of getting all the way down to c) and then doing a cost-benefit analysis, you cannot start at a) with only 95%. This should not be hard to understand. If begin with a) at 95% you lose the climate change argument from the get-go. You have too many assertions to make in order to conclude that global warming is happening, we are causing it, we can fix it, what we are doing will fix it and the costs associated are worth the harm that would befall us otherwise. If you are already settling for 95% at the first stage you are sunk.
"The CLT doesn't really care about the underlying distribution, btw. Means of independent variables asymptotically reach normality regardless of the underlying distribution. "
Wrong. While CLT works and can be applied in a variety of circumstances, it cannot be applied in all. It is for the exact same reason that you see a supposed "mis-pricing" of >=-3 sigma puts which are valued materially above what they "should be" according to stock market behaviour being normally distributed. The link I posted goes through the matter with respect to climate data. I can post more material if you would like. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:04 PM
What you fail to understand is that other statistical techniques (such as regression) aren't computing empirical means and that's why violations of normality are problematic for them. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:20 PM
No. Wrong.
From the article I posted above:
"Furthermore, there is a generalization of the Central Limit Theorem that says that the sum of a large number of independent random variables will have a stable distribution. Thus if some phenomenon such as changes in stock prices or rain from a storm is the result of a large number of independent influences then it would be expected that the distribution would be a stable distribution but not necessarily a normal distribution.
If a distribution is fat-tailed then that fact would account for the unexpected extreme cases and consequently in large changes in variables, the sort of occurrences associated with catastrophes."
Just do a quick sanity check for yourself. Look at weather catastrophes and stock market movements and see if they plot a normal distribution. How hard is it to understand: There are plenty of instances of data not forming a normal distribution around the mean (difference or otherwise).
"What you fail to understand is that other statistical techniques (such as regression) aren't computing empirical means and that's why violations of normality are problematic for them."
No I understand this, you are trying to construct a straw-man of my argument in order to comfort yourself that I am a moron. Evidence that this is not my point and what you say here is both accurate and irrelevant:
From Wiki
Thus far the data have been assumed to consist of the trend plus noise, with the noise at each data point being independent and identically-distributed random variables and to have a normal distribution. Real data (for example climate data) may not fulfill these criteria. This is important, as it makes an enormous difference to the ease with which the statistics can be analysed so as to extract maximum information from the data series. If there are other non-linear effects that have a correlation to the independent variable (such as cyclic influences), the use of least-squares estimation of the trend is not valid. Also where the variations are significantly larger than the resulting straight line trend, the choice of start and end points can significantly change the result. That is, the result is mathematically inconsistent. Statistical inferences (tests for the presence of trend, confidence intervals for the trend, etc.) are invalid unless departures from the standard assumptions are properly accounted for, for example as follows:
Dependence: autocorrelated time series might be modeled using autoregressive moving average models. Non-constant variance: in the simplest cases weighted least squares might be used. Non-normal distribution for errors: in the simplest cases a generalised linear model might be applicable. Unit root: taking first differences of the data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trend_estimation
What really makes me laugh however, is that you admit that regression does not work. Which means that even if you can prove that temps have increased by 0.6 degrees in the last 140 years, how do you support projected increases which are the basis for the entire "green" movement?
|
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:37 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:39 PM "Yes, 95% CI is the most common standard in general (i.e. political polls, etc.), however, for the purposes of getting all the way down to c) and then doing a cost-benefit analysis, you cannot start at a) with only 95%." Brother, that entire assertion depends largely on your evaluation of the risks of a false positive versus a false negative. If false positive on GCT @ 95% confidence interval being anthropogenic, we lose some economic strength. If false negative on GCT being anthropogenic, we possibly face mass extinction as a species or at a minimum global economic catastrophe. Look at it this way: if there's a test with 95% confidence gives results on whether you have some deadly disease that can be cured with a pill that causes diarrhea for one week, you shouldn't say I REFUSE TO TAKE SAID PILL UNTIL THE TEST CAN BE IMPROVED TO 99% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:43 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:46 PM Thanks for the first sentence; I expect a lot from you, too, brother, which is why I don't just dismiss your shit as shit. I agree that we're dealing with a lot of unknowns here. But it really does strike me as plainly obvious that the costs of assuming (wrongly) that we need to take steps to mitigate anthropogenic global climate change are vastly outweighed by the costs of assuming (wrongly) that we can just fuck around and do nothing. On one hand, we have a depression at worst. On the other, we have the death of humanity. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:47 PM
Look, the principle you are espousing here is as follows: It is worth the cost, even if very high, to avoid a chance, however slim, of certain doom.
The problem with such a perspective is that supporting building a giant metal dome around the earth that can be closed in order to defend against an asteriod hit is also justified as are a million other very expensive projects that address tiny-prob risks. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:47 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:50 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:52 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:14 PM
|
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:28 PM
Um, no. I don't understand that at all. That's a ridiculous unsubstantiated leap. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:36 PM
You are right, in a sense. Is it possible that we can only be 20% sure the earth is getting hotter and yet can show that green initiatives are worth it? Sure, but I want to see the quant on that. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:39 PM
|
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:42 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:55 PM Just to let you know, a full CBA looks like this (let o(x) mean "the odds of x occurring" and c(x) be "the cost of doing x")
o(anthropogenic gw) * c(~doing something) > o(~anthropogenic gw) * c(doing something) ==> do something |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:15 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:45 PM
--CGM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:49 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:51 PM
You have failed to make a convincing case as to why some apparently arbitrary level of certainty is required to even address whether we can change the thing that is nearly certain to happen. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:18 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:28 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:38 PM
You can pick whatever you want, just make sure it is something justified under the auspice of GW. i.e. you can justify having filters on smoke stacks but that is mostly for other reasons. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:41 PM
How about YOU explain why 99% or greater certainty of warming is required to even begin to discuss any other steps, since that's the claim/argument you have made and failed to explain.
|
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:50 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:30 PM
where does the 99% prerequisite come from? why is a 95% CI insufficient evidence for moving to b)? |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:35 PM
This is not the exact same thing as what a 95% CI would mean, but just to illustrate the general point:
Lets say there is a 90% chance of global warming occuring, a 80% chance humans are causing it given that it is occurring and a 80% chance that given that we are causing it, we can reverse it and a 60% chance that given that we can reverse it, the benefits outwiegh the costs. Therefore, your actual chance that what you suggest is the proper course of action w/r/t the green movement is:
0.9*0.8*0.8*0.6 = 35%.
Now do you understand why you had better be sure of the first couple of steps to even have a shot at making a legitimate argument?
Let alone the fact that I take offense to the notion that you can even apply CI to weather patterns as I have discussed in the other sub-thread. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:36 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:43 PM You are neglecting to incorporate the relative costs of making a Type I vs Type II error. Confidence intervals are set for precisely this reason: making a Type I or Type II error maybe vastly more costly than making the other error. You took two stats classes years ago? You likely never bothered to learn why the fuck alpha is set at .05 or .1 or .125 or anything and just memorized "smaller alpha = more reliable" |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:44 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:48 PM So in other words, a CBA needs to be done as early as possible in the process, NOT after actually demonstrating A, B, and C. Since demonstrating A, B, and C relies on selecting an alpha, which relies on doing a CBA. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:48 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:20 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:21 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:30 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:41 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:43 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:51 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:46 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:49 PM
Cost of GW: $100B
Cost to stop GW: $10B
Chance of GW: 35%
Since 100B*.35>10B, therefore Green initiatives should be made. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:52 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:21 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:31 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:53 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:27 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:30 PM
I am going to respond to this not because I think it will provide any net benefit w/r/t the GW discussion, but rather because your post is an excellent example of a 115 IQ individual who thinks they are smarter than they actually are. I want to demonstrate to you, and anyone else who reads this, the ditch so many posters on this bort fall into because of their hubris.
Lets us use My life as the metric for the CBA. It can really be anything from the QOL/lives of myself and my offspring to the entire human population, but I want to keep it simple for your sake.
Let us also assume that we know that GW exists and that, if allowed to continue, will destroy the planet in 50 years.
Let us assume I am 25 and expect to live to 95.
Let us assume the cost to me to avoid GW with absolute certainty is $1M PV.
The anaylsis and my decision rests on whether 20 years of my life from the age of 75 to 95 is worth $1M (i.e. not fucking infinity vs. $1M).
Do you now understand how retarded your post is? If you had even stopped for a moment and thought about it, you would realize that any equivalent version of GW CBA analysis would be something like the CBA analysis of smoking. The cost is not infinite because I do not die immediately (and even then, while I would agree that if it was immediate I would do anything I could to avoid it, that is not the case for everyone, i.e. someone who wants to kills themselves and does not care about anyone else).
Do you now understand? The real problem with this bort in many circumstances is when someone gets utterly destroyed in a situation that is neither due to misinterpretation nor factual ignorance, but rather due to plain inferior intellect, they just scurry away, change moniker, and re-emerge. There never appears to be a feedback loop, even for those who keep their Monikers. Guys like Buffet, Sandusky, Tanner Boyle, Twista, :D are constantly destroyed not just in terms of underlying factual knowledge, but in terms of just logical reasoning. And yet, they keep coming back, thinking they know the *right* answer and that the guy who has destroyed them in ever other thread has it wrong. Guys, please, learn, adapt, grow. And, if you cannot improve, then have the decency to admit as much and sit on the sidelines. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 12:39 PM
I'm not saying that these are costs one should assume in making this analysis, because not only do you have to show the likelihood of X happening, but also what X is (maybe it's just a different planet, not an uninhabitable one). |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 1:04 PM
I explicitly suggest that using myself AND my descendants as the basis for the CBA would also be reasonable. However, the above poster did not say "Using X specific basis leads to an infinite result" he said ANY CBA. All I have to show is that one plausible application of CBA w/r/t GW does not lead to an infinite result to destroy his case.
As an aside, a question for you, with this sort of stuff lets just perform a sanity check. When it comes to a CBA analysis of GW, ANY major natural disasters are going to have the same attributes. Take for example an Asteriod strike, it would probably wipe out everyone if >1km across. How do you decide to spend billions on preventing/slowing down GW but not billions on building some sort of shield around the earth that can be activated to destroy asteriods? Even if you think the CBA cost is infinite (it is not for many metrics), how do you justify one and not the other? Do you use another framework? If so, which one? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 1:07 PM
Similarly, I think they view our ability to prevent a GW-related catastrophe as greater than our ability to prevent an asteroid collision. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 1:16 PM
"If we had to pick between working towards stopping GW vs. an Asteriod Stike, on what basis would people make this decision"
It does not however answer my question which never indicated the options were mutually exclusive. It is about illustrating the intellectual inconsistency behind the GW prevention initiatives supporters. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 1:19 PM
"How do you decide to spend billions on preventing/slowing down GW but not billions on building some sort of shield around the earth that can be activated to destroy asteriods? Even if you think the CBA cost is infinite (it is not for many metrics), how do you justify one and not the other? Do you use another framework? If so, which one?"
If you think the likelihood of one is greater than the other and the likelihood of being able to prevent that one is greater than the other, that certainly could explain why you want to focus resources on that one, right?
I'm just speculating here, anyway. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 1:24 PM
Even the more dramatic green initiatives, just shy of us going back to the caves, leaves plenty of resources to allocate to asteriod defence. For this reason they are not mutually exclusive. This means that if there is infinite CBA cost for both, you would certainly start with GW first if you think it is more likely, but you would also work on the asteriods aswell. Given this so-called infinite cost, the only way to be logically consistent would be if these people used another framework other than CBA, because under CBA we should be allocating all our resources, in order of likelyhood, to defend against these total-destruction outcomes. Since the supporters do not advocate this position they must either be inconsistent idiots OR are using another framework.
Also, I understand the we both agree on the fallacious nature of the original post (not by you) and are now hypothesising about how others feel/would react rather than our own thoughts. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 1:32 PM
I'm not sure which "original post" you're talking about now. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:50 PM
and CLT holds when you take the distribution of sample means regardless of the underlying distribution, provided you have a large enough n.
you do realize that ex ante decisionmaking requires a different framework than ex post fact-finding? Risk preferences are irrelevant ex post.
|
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:39 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:44 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:49 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:52 PM You realize nothing in science is done on a CI of 99%, right? |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 6:50 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:26 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:31 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:06 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:23 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:44 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:30 AM
if a problem is manmade a manmade solution is therefore feasible.
but, just because a man (b) kills another man doesn't mean the man can bring him back to life. (C) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 11:35 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:06 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:36 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:41 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:29 AM
|
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:20 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:42 AM
None of this is proven. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:56 AM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:33 PM A is infuckingcontrovertible. http://massextinction.web.unc.edu/files/2010/12/global_temp_graph.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:36 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:42 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:46 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:37 PM
That's pretty selfish, dude. You have kids? How great a percentage chance of your kids/grandkids living in a hellhole would convince you to endanger your standard of living? |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:41 PM "Cow goes Moo, I agree with you that we do not know, but I do not want to take the risk of harming my grandkids so I will drive a Prius."
I would have zero problem. HOWEVER, if you go
"Cow goes Moo, I think global warming has indeed not been shown to be true with even the slightest legitimacy, but I do not want to risk it, so I am going to come up to you put a gun to your head and take money from you to support my green initaitves"
That is when I have a problem. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:54 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:28 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:59 PM "with even the slightest legitimacy" Well, aside from there being the slighted legitimacy... |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:15 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:59 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:35 PM
*xoxo conservatives scratch heads, ponder meaning* |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:36 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 12:51 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 6:22 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 6:40 PM
and then obviously much projection for future warming is based on assumptions about climate sensitivity, feedback cycles, etc... that usually assume the worst and have some [citation needed] issues. don't care about this issue and won't stick around for debate. just funny that people so willingly ignore the obvious issue of considering time windows before pronouncing something a secular trend. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 6:56 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:08 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:17 PM keep ignoring the ecological data and then kill yourself |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:20 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:18 PM
immediate followup response shows incomprehension of cautious use of span in time series analysis.
personally i plan on continuing to live for at least 50 years, adjusting my attitudes about AGW according to observed trends. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:30 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:43 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:26 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:30 PM
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Even visually you can see that we are not experienced an unprecedented swing in temps (goes upto 1990, but the micro-scale graph below shows the continuation into the 2000s). |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:37 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:43 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:52 PM
see also: "nutritionists" at bodybuilding.com who make retarded assumptions about supplements based on vast oversimplifications about the body (well if X does Y, X-related compound must necessarily also do Y), anyone who comments on sites like dailykos or freep, pod people |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:00 PM
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/
How about 800K years worth of data which confirm that we are not going through anything new, by NASA no less. And you know they are not anti-GW cause look at the 2nd graph.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php
I can keep going brah. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:07 PM
the second is a pretty laughable paper because he essentially picks 14 fairly random sources from different locations with no justification for how why he only chose those particular data sets. he entirely ignores other non-tree ring proxies such as corals. i guarantee you could easily take 14 (out of the literally hundreds of climate reconstructions for the past 200 years) and come up with a scenario which fits what you want to argue given that it isn't something completely radical |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:09 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:51 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 6:59 PM
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/temperature-data-quality.html |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 1:04 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:19 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:34 PM
0.6+/- 0.2 change in the past 140 years.
Now consider this:
-that is at the 95% CI which is insufficient as I explained above
-It does not take into account urban heat island effects as rural areas where the measuring stations are become more urbanized (i.e. more asphalt, etc.)
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/satanic5.pdf
-It, at best, shows a small degree of temp increases and does not provide ANY scope with respect to proving that humans are causing it and that we can stop it and that the proposed "Green" initiatives are worth the cost. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:51 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:53 PM u mad |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:56 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:57 PM
We haven't, although some recent numbers suggest this, they are not even close to definitive.
lol. he is a lot more damn sure than 50% or else he wouldn't have come out and said it, being the ultimate skeptic with credentials |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:05 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:24 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:58 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:03 PM
Once you have accepted, in principle, that there is a limit with respect to hurting our QOL for the biodiveristy, or the environment generally, it is just a matter of quantification. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:14 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:19 PM
but yes, land use change is a much larger overall factor in biodiversity loss than global warming (unless the latter goes totally out of control). global warming is more of an issue for people (farmers, sea level, etc.) than animals |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:36 PM
no.
source: work in ecological genetics. |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:38 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:49 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Biodiversity.png |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:04 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:08 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:24 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:29 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:44 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:11 PM the substantial paycut seems completely worth it to me to avoid having to teach 400 person lecture courses, ugh (I actually like teaching small groups and individuals, though) |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:29 PM
no question it's better than gunning for an academic track. no idea what motivates ppl to pursue that except that it's maybe all they know. or misguided ideas about status. |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 2:29 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 8:19 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 7:28 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:07 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:37 PM
|
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:40 PM
No, it's obviously because they have no intellectual integrity at all |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 9:47 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:15 PM |
|
Date: May 9th, 2012 10:56 PM
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/satanic5.pdf
Seriously, just think about that for a moment. They are dealing with thousands of data collection areas across the globe. They are measuring an output (temp) that is impacted by thousands of different variables. Their claim that GW is happening rests on an increase of 0.6 degrees. And yet, they have failed to take into account something so basic and fundamental that you and I can understand it. How does that speak to the efficacy of their conclusion which rests on the narrowest of margins? |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 12:30 PM |
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 2:29 PM
|
|
Date: May 10th, 2012 3:17 PM |