There is actually a reason today's young parents buy - MUST buy - big gas-guzzlers ---

Car seats. Required-by-law car seats that strap into a single seat in the car.

You can't just put three kids and Grandma in the back seat any more. You have to have a separate seat for each child. That means if you have any more than two children and two adults, you either need a big vehicle, or two cars. Which is harder on the environment?

(Signed) one of the Grandmas the kids had to try to find room for in the car - or else use two cars. Luckily, the other grandma had a hybrid.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Uh oh, it looks like Justin and I have had our true identities revealed ... we are CEOs at Exxon!

Follow the anti-SUV religion if you believe that you will find salvation in it, just please go easy on the condescending sarcasm towards those of us who choose not to attend your church.

Yeah, I thought that was it.

See, this isn't really about the validity of the science of global warming. You offer up "scientific dogmatics" as a cute little strawman, but it doesn't hold up.

The current model is the best we have available at the moment, and only that. Claiming that the scientific community has this whole thing etched in stone is disingenuous. None of the science-oriented folks here have alleged that The Last Word has been spoken on this subject.

Bob and Mike have even taken the time to research your underwater vent theory. Hardly the behavior of dogmatists, I'd say.

Aside from the entertainment value for you of contradicting the scientific consensus on this subject, I would venture that this is actually more about political ideology -- that you just don't want government putting any kind of limits on how much you can consume.

Which is fine; but don't hide behind the illusion that it's about science.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

There is actually a reason today's young parents buy - MUST buy - big gas-guzzlers ---

Car seats. Required-by-law car seats that strap into a single seat in the car.

You can't just put three kids and Grandma in the back seat any more. You have to have a separate seat for each child. That means if you have any more than two children and two adults, you either need a big vehicle, or two cars. Which is harder on the environment?

(Signed) one of the Grandmas the kids had to try to find room for in the car - or else use two cars. Luckily, the other grandma had a hybrid.

I've driven compact cars with two kids and Grandma in the back, and it's a little tight but it works.

Once you get past two kids, then a larger car would indeed be called for.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Strictly speaking, the comment wasn't about their contribution to warming; rather Rani noted that the supposedly-Global-Warming-caused thaw of the polar icecap all was sort of concentrated in one area -- and that maybe the proximate cause of that particular event was something a bit less far-fetched. You know, like an increase in thermal activity right under the spot that melted? It turns out she's not the only one to wonder about that, and that actual science is taking place.

Could you point me to someone other than you and Rani wondering that? The stuff I've been able to find has the biologists wondering whether the Arctic vents have deep deep shrimp like the Atlantic vents, or deep deep clams like the Pacific. (I'm guessing shrimp. I understand the Arctic ridge is an extension of the Atlantic.) The new project seems more centered on biology than climate.

Originally Posted by beautifulcartoon73

well, judge me how you will, but I for one would trust a scientist dogmatic over a layman one.

The only dogmatic I trust is the Roman Catholic Church. "Scientist dogmatic" is an oxymoron.






OAUN, where is the thread on the economic troubles. I've got some stuff I need to add.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Uh oh, it looks like Justin and I have had our true identities revealed ... we are CEOs at Exxon!

!!!They're on to me!!!

I'm actually not at Exxon, but I do work in the dinosaur-juice-burning field. Worse, I'm directly responsible for an increase in the number of those things being built. Muwahaha.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh dear. A true scientist can not be dogmatic! That defeats the whole concept of the objective observer, which can never be completely achieved but is nevertheless ALWAYS the goal. Having a "dogma" will make any science that one conducts invalid.

May it please Your Majesty,

Do you think it possible to sort out the dogmatists, the scientists, and the rest in the case of the application of the Theory of Equatorial Environmental Inequality of Engineering?:

Originally Posted by The Nobel Prize-winning DNA pioneer James Watson

"We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things,"

"The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity."It may well be.

But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science. To question this is not to give in to racism. This is not a discussion about superiority or inferiority, it is about seeking to understand differences, about why some of us are great musicians and others great engineers."

Originally Posted by BBC

Dr Watson was due to give a lecture at the Science Museum in London on Friday as part of a book tour. But the museum cancelled the event, saying the scientist had gone beyond the point of acceptable debate.

The Bristol Festival of Ideas has also cancelled an appearance by Dr Watson.

The Nobel Prize-winning DNA pioneer James Watson has been suspended by his research institution in the US.

Ma'am will Homo Global Warming cause our spawn to become much better dancers but increasingly inable to build bridges as things heat up? I know I cannot decide on such matters as generations of saunas have left me with an appreciation of the dance floor (what with its waltzs, tangoes, polkas, limbos, etc.) and much less interest in lab work than should be proper for one from a heritage of Cold Climate. This is why attend to Your Majesty's ukase.

Yo. Too-often dancing-shoed Sv.
VKS

Originally Posted by The Rani

Even if I had such a theory, which I don't, Bob and Mike haven't researched it unless they did some deep-sea artic exploration in the last few days. In fact, nobody has researched it, which is the point that you guys keep missing, intentionally or otherwise.

good grief....nobody is researching whether or not Heat Miser is behind it all either...SO WHAT?? You agreed yourself, "Action on environmental issues is always a good idea, regardless of whether global warming is happening or not."

Originally Posted by The Rani

... science is too valuable to be lost, or turned into just another religion.

THAT is so what.

agreed.

but do you honestly believe this is happening, or is that just some spectre you are conjouring?

look, you are the doctor and i'm just the college dropout; i don't know any scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...ific_consensus

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Strictly speaking, the comment wasn't about their contribution to warming; rather Rani noted that the supposedly-Global-Warming-caused thaw of the polar icecap all was sort of concentrated in one area -- and that maybe the proximate cause of that particular event was something a bit less far-fetched. You know, like an increase in thermal activity right under the spot that melted? It turns out she's not the only one to wonder about that, and that actual science is taking place.

Of course, the dogmatists took that as a threat against their Consensus. No big surprise there. The Consensus treated Galileo the same way.

If underwater volcanic activity caused the melting it would of caused a hole in the ice a few miles wide at the very most I would think, not most of the eastern half of the fricking ice cap. Oh well, you and Rani can go on believing in epicycles...

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's exactly the problem. The scientists are losing their scientifity, and turning into dogmatics. The reason that concerns people like Justin and me is that the more they do that, the more reason and logic die off in favor of a different flavor of religion, which is just as threatening to real progress.

Methinks this is the same argument based on selective skepticism (pseudo-skepticism) con-men, cranks, and Creationists use when scientists call BS on their arguments

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's funny, I was actually going to bring up the Watson issue as another example of politics interfering with science. I dunno whether the dude is right or just senile, but The Truth is The Truth, whether politically correct or not.

Watson has a bad habit of saying rude and bigoted things. The guy supports EUGENICS for Christ's sakes...

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I've driven compact cars with two kids and Grandma in the back, and it's a little tight but it works.

Once you get past two kids, then a larger car would indeed be called for.

My sister has two kids, aged 11 and 8, and she has an '08 Buick Enclave on order. It's a so-called "crossover vehicle", sort of a sportier cross between a true SUV and a minivan. It doesn't get bad mileage for what it is: 16/22 under the new, stricter EPA standards. Her reasoning is that on long family trips (they seem to like Florida a lot) the family needs room to stretch.

Originally Posted by Odin

Watson has a bad habit of saying rude and bigoted things. The guy supports EUGENICS for Christ's sakes...

Scientists might wanna accept a little religious interference in the name of preserving morality. They certainly don't wanna repeat the science of the last Crisis, which is exactly what happens when you divorce science (or anything) from proper morality.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh dear. A true scientist can not be dogmatic! That defeats the whole concept of the objective observer, which can never be completely achieved but is nevertheless ALWAYS the goal. Having a "dogma" will make any science that one conducts invalid.

Wow, what insight.

Originally Posted by sean '90

Scientists might wanna accept a little religious interference in the name of preserving morality. They certainly don't wanna repeat the science of the last Crisis, which is exactly what happens when you divorce science (or anything) from proper morality.

So, in other words, skew science to fit a particular agenda...

Brilliant!

Originally Posted by sean '90

Scientists might wanna accept a little religious interference in the name of preserving morality. They certainly don't wanna repeat the science of the last Crisis, which is exactly what happens when you divorce science (or anything) from proper morality.

Morality doesn't depend upon religion. Far more danger arises from fanaticism than from from the lack of some specific faith. The stated tenets of a fanatic do far less damage than does the vehemence of hatred that a fanatic bears.

What do you think of Quakers?

------

I have my theory -- that the threat of nuclear war abated as the atomic scientists got invitations to the great cities of the 'enemy' countries. Our scientists visited places like Moscow, Leningrad (as it was then known), Kiev, and Riga. The Soviet scientists were invited to New York, San Francisco, Paris, London, and Rome -- likely targets of The Bomb. Nobody had to challenge ideology of a scientist; all that was necessary to take some Soviet scientist to the Louvre, to Montmartre, and the Champs-Elysees. Such an experience worked far better than any ideological hectoring to give people cold feet about nukes.

Originally Posted by Odin

If underwater volcanic activity caused the melting it would of caused a hole in the ice a few miles wide at the very most I would think, not most of the eastern half of the fricking ice cap.

Thank you, Odin, for once again demonstrating so well the consequences of dogmatism upon science. You see, even recognizing that you don't have a clue, you have nevertheless judged the question to be unworthy of investigation.

------
oh, and btw:

• hot fluids are less dense than cool
• lower density volumes in a solution will rise to the highest point
• against an upper surface, this means that the warm water will spread rather significantly -- the outer limit being the quasi-stable boundary between the rate of natural convective current and the rate of heat transfer within the system and system-to-boundary.
• A two-phase system (such as, for example, a quantity of ice floatng on water) is very sensitive to energy balance

So dismissing that mechanic out of hand is really pretty silly.

Originally Posted by The Rani

That's exactly the problem. The scientists are losing their scientifity, and turning into dogmatics. The reason that concerns people like Justin and me is that the more they do that, the more reason and logic die off in favor of a different flavor of religion, which is just as threatening to real progress.

Those scientists that are fully engaged in this quest are the first to admit that there is a limit to what they can measure and, therefore, what they can know. So, in a field that can never be fully defined, you insist on proof. Well that says a lot by itself.

Personally, I'll go with the odds, which is what statistics are after all. I'll bet that trying to address this problem aggressively is the best alternative of those available, and pursuing the science to improve our knowledge is part and parcel of being aggressive.

We're at a point where trying to define the problem is the best we can do. We have good reason to believe - not proof, but valid concern - that failing to address this issue before we fully understand it holds a high degree of risk. The more the problem is defined, as the recent narrowing of potential outcomes presented recently would indicate, the less likely that the problem is minor or nonexsitent. A rational person, given that basket of information and analysis - incomplete though it may be, would be hard pressed to argue against pro-activity.

So, given what we know and what we don't know, can you argue that doing little to nothing is defensible? If the answer is no, then the rest is just details.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I definitely see it happening on this thread.

It happens all the time in the "real world" too. Whenever you look at a scientific study, you have to consider the source.

well, if we can get back to the topic for a second, and for what it's worth, it is my sense that at the end of the day, you either:

A.) actually agree with the growing scientific consensus on global warming (which is, i don't know, too boring for you or something)

B.) are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt

or at the very least

C.) think that the quibbling over how it it happening is somewhat irrelevant, if acting on the issue has the effect of less polution, more energy independence, improved infrastructure, etc.

...just the same as most of us here who are not experts.

and yet you seem to be trapped defending the skeptic line out of some principle, knee jerk reaction or general provocateur-ishness.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brendan O’Neill

Some environmentalists have no shame.

...The recent defence of the essential truth of Gore’s film provides a snapshot of environmentalists’ view of debate, democracy and the public. For all their claims that their campaign against climate change is driven by unquestionable scientific facts, they are more than willing to nod through a few errors here and there. Theirs is actually a political and moralistic campaign, based on misanthropic ideas about human activity and on demands for restraint, austerity and the rewiring of people’s expectations and desires. And this campaign uses The Science as a false form of authority. For greens, The Science is less about facts and evidence, much less open debate, than it is about scaring people into accepting the environmentalist agenda. The Science is used both to pressure people to accept the political premises of the green lobby, and also to silence anybody who criticises the green lobby by accusing them of being ‘anti-science’ or ‘deniers’. That is why even errors and exaggerations can become part of The Science, the overall truth, in the world of the environmentalist – because The Science is actually a deeply political category.

Environmentalists have a narrow view indeed of what constitutes ‘the truth’. They treat truth as something which is revealed to the public by scientists in a laboratory, which apparently green activists are allowed to exaggerate every now and then. In short, the truth comes from on high, and we must all abide by it. For spiked, truth is something that is actually best formulated by the public rather than for the public, through robust and honest debate about our needs and desires and how society can best meet them. As John Stuart Mill said, truth can only be established through free and frank public debate, and unless truth is ‘vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice’.

The received truth of environmentalism – that The Science has indicted mankind as a plague on the planet and we must atone for our sins by reducing our carbon emissions and reining in development – is indeed little more than a prejudice. And a hard-hitting democratic debate about environmentalism, where neither Al Gore’s film nor Martin Durkin’s film, whatever their errors, should be censored, might help to expose the poisonous prejudices behind the truth about climate change.

Mr. Gore's 'Good' Lies

I would wish that doing 'something' would include grounding all heavier-than-air transport for any Homo Global Warming-ist of the "True Beliver" sort. Hypocrites would be, of course, allowed to fly at their leisure.

Originally Posted by 13rian

well, if we can get back to the topic for a second, and for what it's worth, it is my sense that at the end of the day, you either:

A.) actually agree with the growing scientific consensus on global warming (which is, i don't know, too boring for you or something)

B.) are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt

or at the very least

C.) think that the quibbling over how it it happening is somewhat irrelevant, if acting on the issue has the effect of less polution, more energy independence, improved infrastructure, etc.

...just the same as most of us here who are not experts.

and yet you seem to be trapped defending the skeptic line out of some principle, knee jerk reaction or general provocateur-ishness.

In the end, you arrived at the truth. The Rani likes to argue for its own sake.

cute, Virgil.

yes, by all means, let's keep debating and nitpicking ad infinitum...

Al Gore uses gasoline? Gee whiz, absolutely everything he says must be a lie!

no one (well not me) wants to close off debate or exploration...I just don't think "vigourous public debate" should be used as a stalling tactic; to provide cover for stubborness, laziness, greed or whatever the reason. We can be taking productive steps in the meantime.

Do i think taxes and regulations are the best way to handle it? No, that should be more of a last resort. Yes, i know a democrat saying that taxes are a last resort is sort of like president bush saying preemptive war was a "last resort...

It seems to me what we need to do is set up the conditions where designing/purchasing/using green technology rises to be on par with and eventually surpasses the current paleo-alternatives. The sooner the better.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It turns out she's not the only one to wonder about that, and that actual science is taking place.

Can you provide a link that supports your claim the science is currently investigating whether or not polar ice melting reflects increased volcanic activity under the melting region? Can you also quote the specific section in that link which discusses this proposed volcanic theory of polar melting?

Thank you

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Strictly speaking, the comment wasn't about their contribution to warming;

It's not about warming?

You know, like an increase in thermal activity right under the spot that melted?

What is "an increase in thermal activity" if not warming. Of course the comment was about warming.

rather Rani noted that the supposedly-Global-Warming-caused thaw of the polar icecap all was sort of concentrated in one area -- and that maybe the proximate cause of that particular event was something a bit less far-fetched.

Less far-fetched than noiseless undersea volcanoes?