O_oWhy is there something instead of nothing?
Turtles. You can just look it up.
Soma
O_oWhy is there something instead of nothing?
Turtles. You can just look it up.
Soma
“Salem Was Wrong!” -- Pedant Necromancer
“Four isn't random!” -- Gibbering Mouther
Don't be ridiculous. It is not paranoia to think something is possible just because the evidence is ambiguous.Originally Posted by Mario F.
While I believe climate change is occurring, I'm fully aware of the ambiguous evidence, and I'm actually glad there are dissenting opinions. (It makes it easier to reach a wider range in the possible solution space, if nothing else.)
I'm not asking anyone to do something about it, and I'm not even asking you to accept climate change as fact.
I am saying you are wasting your own time and effort on pondering whether it is happening or not, because of the insufficient data, bad faith research, and plain incompetent published research involved -- unless you are a climate scientist (or exo-climatologist) yourself, of course, and you get paid to do so. Talking about it with programmers is rather unlikely to pop up anything interesting. Statisticians might have something to contribute, though.
It would be far more interesting, and worth your own while, too I believe, to compare the possible actions (including inaction, but only as one possibility among many), and their relative costs and merits and consequences. The existing discussions are loaded with emotion, and seriously lacking in logic; it would be interesting to see what minds used to applying logic would come up with. After all, this is a problem with immediate practical applicability.
I would not expect any kind of reliable scientific consensus to arrive within our lifetimes. Similar schisms in the scientific community have taken at least two or three generations to resolve; slightly longer the more public the controversy, much longer the more money is involved. Established scientists are always loathe to change their positions, so one generation is certainly the minimum.
Well put. It sounds very sensible on the face of it.
It is true that it is common to react in a wrong way, choosing solutions that turn out to be worse problems than the initial one. Rabbits and cane toads in Australia are very good examples.
However, you're not suggesting we avoid reacting in a bad way. You are saying that it is distasteful to even consider any kind of reaction, before you know what is happening, and how dangerous it is. You are gambling on doing nothing being the best course of action, while refusing to evaluate the merits and demerits of the alternatives. It's a bad gamble; any bookie would say you're more than likely to lose that way. It's just expressed in very reasonable-sounding words.
If you suddenly find yourself blind and in a strange place, with a sound similar to oncoming car or train, a smart, logical person does not stand still and wait to find out whether they get run over or not. A stupid person or a deer or a rabbit might.
The best course of action would be to find out whatever you can. With climate change, we have the equivalent of a gang of stupid youths surrounding you and shouting nonsense, making it difficult or impossible to say what is real and what is fabricated; especially with the environment being naturally noisy.
No, at this point self-preservation (and in the global climate case, enlightened self-interest) should kick in. You should start considering what actions are possible, and whether one of those, or inaction, is best warranted -- while you still have the option. [Yeah, the "Save the Earth" crowd's instinctive response of running in a random direction -- or rather running in all directions at once -- is not only silly, but just about the most dangerous course of action you can think of. But just because you might be fine by staying put, does not make all possible actions silly. For example, you could just move really slowly, faster the closer you think the possible danger is, and see if you can find a place you know to be safer -- say, on the sidewalk. Say, by revoking and banning all patents related to clean(er) energy production, unless the licensing involved encourages their development and use. Even if you weren't in a danger to be run over to start with, you can always improve your position, I believe.]
Comparing to the previous analogy, moving or walking is just one group of options, there are lots more possibilities than that: we're not limited to either "trying to save the planet" or "doing nothing".
What matters is the range of options we have, and discussing their merits and downsides; not whether there is a pressing need to choose one right now. It is insane to waste your time rehashing the same arguments over and over, expecting a different outcome; and prudent to consider your options even if unwarranted and not urgent yet.
As it seems now, we're limited to reacting at the last possible moment, with minimum preponderance on the options. We'll consider the options when we have to make the decision, in other words. This is stupid.
All Semmelweis asked, was for doctors and nurses to wash their hands. Considering the prevalent beliefs, that was felt to be offensive and an unreasonable burden, especially as he could not prove the mechanism. He could show correlation, but not causation.
Everybody I've seen defending the course of complete inaction seem to feel the same way about climate change. Mario F., you yourself said that you find action on a global scale repulsive unless we have scientific proof that action is necessary. You hopefully realize that having the same attitude would have meant accepting the risk of increased infant deaths over several decades, just because the alternative was distasteful?
To be honest, it seems to me your mind has already settled on a specific course of (in)action, and you're just looking for the justification at the emotional level; denying the logical part of your mind any access to the matter at hand. If your mind was really open, you'd be weighing the cost and benefits of inaction against the cost and benefits of any suggested action, and welcome any new ideas on possible actions -- even if just to shoot down in comparative analysis.
Hah, but that's just one option, though -- and a not very realistic one.
I'm not silly enough to believe in saving the planet. Putting aside my views that death is a natural part of life, and even extinctions seem to be a natural part of planetary ecosystem evolution, I believe that humans can adapt, and that we are, at least in theory, already capable of geoengineering at the planetary level. "Saving" anything in its current state is not possible, but we could have quite a bit of control on what it will eventually be replaced with -- or explicitly choose to let it happen as it may, and instead adapt ourselves to the changes.
I think that the most reasonable course of action is to simply have those who can afford it become adaptable and robust enough against any possible changes in the environment, and be prepared for the sustained wars when significant fractions of the population start migrating. This does not mean an arms race at this point, more like rejection of certain global commercial treaties (that would seriously limit the options of the next couple of generations with regards to decisions possibly related to massive environmental changes). In particular, I'd like to see globalization limited. Monocultures are terribly unstable, and vulnerable to external threats.
What I would personally prefer, is to maintain the complexity of the ecosystem. It seems that the simpler the system is, the more susceptible it is to external damage, and I always prefer robust systems over vulnerable ones. Considering that there are more bacteria than cells comprising an average adult human, I don't see it likely that humans could exist for more than a generation or two without a supporting ecosystem.
Don't be silly.
A lot of the climate research, no matter what conclusions it leans towards, is at least as scientifically sound as Semmelweis'. What Semmelweis lacked, was a scientific description of the mechanism. That came later, by Pasteur and Lister and others. All Semmelweis could prove was correlation, not causation, with no reliable science as to the mechanisms involved.
How is that not similar to current climate debate?
Sure, a lot of the climate research is utterly corrupt because of financial interests. A lot of it is like discrediting Semmelweis by showing that washing hands in dirty water soiled by excrement actually increases mortality rates. On both sides of the discussion, too. In my opinion, that just makes that discussion not worth having.
Or, since you yourself mentioned Percival Lowell: A lot of climate research is about trying to see detail and meaning in the fuzzy, blurry picture of past climate we have -- just like Percival Lowell, who thought he saw canals on Mars, spoke-like structures on Venus, and mis-estimated the orbits of Uranus and Neptunus (although that would, by accident it turns out, lead to the discovery of Pluto). The real difference relevant here is that his error was only embarrassing, whereas climate change, if occurring, will affect every single human being on this planet. The cost of waiting for proof is completely different here.
Do not forget that science is often wrong in the short term, and there is no way to tell beforehand which finding turns out to stand the rigorous tests. Similarly, the only proof we'll get about climate change is when it actually occurs. (I'd say based on the fact that climate change has occurred more or less regularly on this planet, another one will happen sooner or later, within the next hundred million years or so at least. Termites have existed for longer than that.)
There was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary progress of science with respect to what Percival Lowell found; it happens all the time in science. At least when humans do it, that is.
And governments decide how much money is in circulation, right? Hahhahahahah!
You must be pulling my leg.
We don't even have fiat money anymore, after fractional banking rules were relaxed and private central banks were given full authority in deciding the amount of money in circulation. Global economy is in the hands of gamblers -- those very same gamblers that are now above the law: too big to fail, too important to prosecute. If they stay away from each others' pockets, and only pick the public one, they're protected.
Current global economy is a chaotic system. Those that have the most control, are only interested in extracting wealth via commissions and charges. There is very little application of any financial model, except when there is belief that it can be applied to make a larger profit. Many banks are completely willing -- being already caught, some more than once -- of committing fraud. There is no political control; indeed, some signs (for example related to the European Central Bank) indicates that central bankers can already dictate global financial policy, up to and including political nominations related to banking oversight.
I'm sorry, Mario F., but unless you were kidding, you really should open your eyes. This is not the world you thought you knew.
No.
Instead of talking whether any action is necessary, we should talk about possible actions, their costs and consequences -- and compare to the possible consequences of inaction.
Who knows; perhaps a logical mind will come up with something with an acceptable minimum cost, that is likely to result in an acceptable outcome in most/all scenarios? The solution space is vast, and very few minds are exploring it right now, it seems.
It's not like anything we're discussing here has any impact on global policy anyhow; discussing the muddled state of climate research is thus doubly useless.
I'd just like to know what solutions humans could come up with. I do not think there is a significant possibility of any pre-planned course of action; whatever actions we'll take, we'll take at the last possible minute, possibly a bit later, with minimal logic applied to pick the action. Most likely it will be selected by a large committee, leading to a selection that is slightly worse than what an average human would pick. I am sure such a decision will have to be made sooner or later, although the reason could be pollution and not climate change.
Because these matters are so heavily laden with emotional baggage, and so lacking in logic, most of the discussions are not worth the electricity spent in the transmissions. Very few people seem to be able to distance themselves from the emotional baggage, and actually apply logic to the situation, and think up new possibilities. Since programmers rely on applying logic in their everyday work, they just might have an idea brewing there somewhere.
Nah, I'm not interested in that.
Like I said, even if you and others perceive me as belittling you or opposing your stance, I'm not. I just see this very discussion as a waste of time and effort, with a very interesting discussion just lurking behind the corner.
Knowing your contributions here, I'd be particularly interested to see what your mind could come up with.
To me, the word "god" usually implies some existence that is "higher" than other lifeforms, e.g. someone with the power to create life, or the like, because that's typically how religions define the word "god." To be fair, when I say "there is no "god"," I mean it in the sense that there is no "religious god" as the different religions would have us be. If you want to define "god" as pure energy or nature itself, then I might accept that, but I wouldn't call it "god." There are better words for that.
Oh no?
I found most of what you said to be pretty on point, but there's a bit of logical contradiction in the quoted part above that I hope to point out.
In a situation where it is impossible to tell what is going on, it is as impossible to quantify what "good" and "bad" actions in said situations are. You can't reconcile it with the analogy of being in front of a train, with the simple choice to step out of the way or be hit. At most we can say that things that would have been good anyway (cleaner energy, ect) are good anyway.
Unrelated but interesting:
I've never been able to tell if central banks are actually trying to make money, or if they just make bad decisions. Whenever the economy has slumped in the past 15 years or so, they pump out money, depressing interest rates on savings. These conditions are meant to force people to invest instead of saving, but because the conditions are false, normal market conditions aren't determining what is being invested in. So you tend to get riskier behavior, and market booms that appear not to make much sense.We don't even have fiat money anymore, after fractional banking rules were relaxed and private central banks were given full authority in deciding the amount of money in circulation. Global economy is in the hands of gamblers -- those very same gamblers that are now above the law: too big to fail, too important to prosecute. If they stay away from each others' pockets, and only pick the public one, they're protected.
I'm not sure what force at work makes the market booming tend to congregate around certain investments (like the .com boom, or the housing boom).
Edit:
I got you. I was pointing it out because my brother in law does basically that, calls the universe "god". There's nothing much wrong with his logic that I can see, he's just diluted the meaning of the term until it doesn't mean anything lol.
Last edited by Alpo; 10-12-2014 at 11:10 PM.
WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;
When a discussion of anything transforms into consideration of the existence of god, it is usually strong evidence the discussion has degenerated into the ridiculous.
Ah, that is because you lack the imagination and sense of wonder!
You and Elysia seem to be so sure of what cannot be, how can you even be sure of what is? Are you sure you're real? Are you sure that I am? Are we not both just dreams made up by something bigger?
But for real though, I think metaphysics would be really fascinating. Why gravity? Why electricity and magnetism? Why atoms? Why photons? Why should the universe even exist? I typically like to equate God to these types of questions.
You know, omnipotence isn't that far-fetched. It is also physically possible to create life. We are just particles, after all. Just arrange them right and boom! You have grumpy! Or me!
Common misconception. Unweaving the Rainbow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAh, that is because you lack the imagination and sense of wonder!
Serious question: what do you mean by "equate god to these types of questions"? What do humans questioning the world around us have to do with a deity? Or do you mean you see the answers to these questions as having something to do with a 'god'? In which case, what is the motivation for seeking answers when a we just attribute them to a divine entity?Why gravity? Why electricity and magnetism? Why atoms? Why photons? Why should the universe even exist? I typically like to equate God to these types of questions.
Or are you coming from a more pantheistic point of view?
No disrespect is intended - I'm just curious about peoples' thoughts on this topic.
For reasons beyond our (current) understanding, different parts or entities or forces (or whatever to call it) have converged over the course of millions upon millions of years, settling into some stable state that causes these phenomenons that we see, or can measure. This is not the work of some omnipotent entity. This is the work of "nature," and all of what that consists of.
To even question my own existence, I have to presuppose it. (The 'I' in "am I real?"). From a personal standpoint, I'm real because it would be impossible to question my existence otherwise.
It doesn't matter if you are, really. You're words have a truth value separate from your existence as a person. It would be pretty cool if existence worked like Tinkerbell though (I don't believe in you MutantJohn! *POOF the destructor is called*)
The idea has certain inherent contradictions. The only way it makes sense is to have omnipotence inside the framework of certain logical parameters (ie, you couldn't make a rock so big you couldn't lift it). When you do that however, you have something more powerful controlling the 'omnipotent' being. Besides that, any other attributes you could assign would most likely contradict the omnipotence as well (knowledge of the future for instance).
It's interesting to consider though. Edit: Just to add I didn't mean disrespect either, I don't think spiritualistic type views are a bad thing (I've just never been able to hang on to them myself).
Last edited by Alpo; 10-13-2014 at 11:22 AM.
WndProc = (2[b] || !(2[b])) ? SufferNobly : TakeArms;
How can I do otherwise? This isn't about Doha smog, Peshwar, or New Delhi. This isn't about deforestation, sea pollution, the WTC memorial lights, or Heathrow noise pollution. We have measures for many of the local pollution problems we face today. They are more or less successfully applied worldwide. But, as you requested, have been discussed and even implemented partially or fully.
Instead this is about a global effect. Finding solutions implies the cooperation of the vast majority of industrialized and recently industrialized countries. Many of which won't be too sensible to the idea of taxing-slash-regulating (aka castrating) their newly formed economies, when they looked at the rich countries as the ones who didn't have to go through all of those regulations and that and for many years happily polluted the world with the benefit of being today strong modern economies.
Global Warming implies a Global Consensus. Including that of China heavily coal dependent industry, Africa's heavy dependency on foreign industries, or India's immeasurable dependency on small unregulated businesses. It even implies a reevaluation of the oil industry of which most of the world, including the rich countries, are dependent on. How on earth, in this context, can you actually support the idea that we must discuss what we can do, if we have no factual, or at least an indicative knowledge, of the Global Warming severity or if it is even a reality?
I strongly oppose the idea that we must find solutions. I don't even personally believe that we are facing any danger. But above all, I believe that we must turn our neurons towards finding a scientific framework to the Global Warming issue and, in case we do find this to be a real phenomena, then, and only then, discuss the measures we can take. Assuming the worst case scenarios of some Global Warming advocates, we are facing a terrible danger. Is that so? In that case, the impact of corrective measures would be so large that it can't be discussed so irresponsibly in the pre-emptive manner you defend.
Last edited by Mario F.; 10-13-2014 at 12:51 PM. Reason: some spell checking
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Can we really not just do the math on this?
We can track the CO2 being put into the atmosphere and then assume a spherical and uniform density of it (which is currently inaccurate but...). It shouldn't be impossible to know how much heat CO2 can keep in. Has no one done that yet? Because that'd prove it pretty much on the spot.
Or have we proven that and we're just not convinced that 1 - 2 degrees matters? Even though initial seed conditions can radically change output in a chaotic system? Is that what we're waiting for? If so, why not just run a simulation? Has no one done this yet either?
If you are biased you can write a simulation to prove anything you want; this is the problem.
NOTE: CO2 does NOT keep heat in the Biosphere; it just slows the rate it leaves the Biosphere.
This is a harder question to solve since no one really knows the constants and variables needed to solve it.
Do you support more data collection to figure out the constants and variables needed to solve it?
The two local AGW supports (I know) said no to collecting more data; I think they are full of ..it because of that.
Tim S.
"...a computer is a stupid machine with the ability to do incredibly smart things, while computer programmers are smart people with the ability to do incredibly stupid things. They are,in short, a perfect match.." Bill Bryson
"I believe in climate change. Sometimes I look at a mountain and think, 'I should climb it for a change.'"
- Tim Vine
Thank you for the scientific correction.
Also, global weather simulations don't have to be inaccurate. We do the same for galaxies, etc so weather is a natural extension. The only problem is, the average non-PhD most likely wouldn't be able to understand how the simulation works so its validity might be questioned. But I am confident that our current formulas and computers are more than enough for the problem.
