Comments | erudito: Gendered brains, gendered science, playful plaque ...

erudito

Gendered brains, gendered science, playful plaque ...

Jun 18, 2005 11:40

Yes, the brains of men and women really are different. Via wildilocks. An intellectually serious debate about why women are disproportionately absent from higher reaches of science and mathematics.

Local historical plaques are not normally this playful in spirit. Via the_christian.

Did I know Andre Norton died? Definitely do now. Via meninaiscrazy

Organising in favour of ( Read more... )

Comments 20

lokicarbis June 18 2005, 06:13:13 UTC

the best response is to stop warming rather than deal with its effects.
A) I've never heard anyone say that.
B) So, you advocate symptomatic relief in preference to going after the causes, then?
'Cos it seems fairly obvious to me that any successful approach will need to address both effects and causes. And the reason it seems fairly obvious to me (aside from the fact that I'm not trying to score political points by making unsupported generalisations), is that I've heard it said any number of times by leading environmentalists. Have you read, for example, Tim Flannery's "Beautiful Lies" in Quarterly Essay?

no strong evidence what is likely to happen will be all that bad.
Uh-huh. Please, feel free to cite this lack of evidence you claim. Or is it only when someone who disagrees with you argues it that an absence of proof is NOT equal to a disproof?

Warming erudito June 19 2005, 00:59:24 UTC

The argument that emissions need to be cut back is all about concentrating on stopping the warming as much as practicable. It is not about concentrating on dealing with the effects.

And, if symptomatic belief is cheaper and easier, yes. Particularly as not all effects would be in one direction.

Since any warming would be concentrated in the northern and southern regions, and during winter, and would on current evidence not (1) affect sea levels or (2) lead to more extreme weather but would lengthen growing seasons and increase plant growth, the case has to be made that the effects will be very negative. Various scare-claims have been made, but they have tended to "melt away" under scrutiny.

Re: Warming lokicarbis June 19 2005, 01:58:05 UTC

The argument that emissions need to be cut back is all about concentrating on stopping the warming as much as practicable. It is not about concentrating on dealing with the effects.
Oh, indubitably. It's just that I don't recall ever seeing it advanced as a solitary argument. Certainly, at times when it is a key issue, such as during the Kyoto conference, it will have greater prominence, simply because it is something that the world's governments are actually doing something about.

But to suggest that it is the sole element of environmental policy is a ludicrous as suggesting that the US government's focus on 'the war on terror' means that they don't have a domestic economic policy.

And, if symptomatic belief is cheaper and easier, yes.
Remind me never to allow you to come with me to the hospital if I'm sick or injured.

Particularly as not all effects would be in one direction.
I assume that this refers to your subsequent paragraph? 'Cos if not, it needs elaboration.

Since any warming would be concentrated in the northern and ( ... )

Re: Warming erudito June 19 2005, 04:07:21 UTC

I never implied that stopping emissions was the only environmental argument. My point is the much narrower one that, given economic resources are finite, it could well be more effective to ameliorate ill effects than to try and seriously cut back on emissions.

increasing variability in weather
Which is precisely one of the issues there are arguments about

As for sea level rise I overstated: I should have said affect sea levels to a major degree. 1mm per year is not much of a rise. (And I have seen arguments that the effects would be in reverse directions, due to inceased precipitation contributing to high Antartic ice levels.)

Regarding citations, the links here will lead to some.

taavi June 19 2005, 00:48:29 UTC

There is a error in your chain of reasoning about global warming at step 2. Even if global warming was not caused by human factors (eg caused by the sunspot cycle) its net effect could still be bad for us. In which case we would still have to take major action, though it would presumably be of "treat the effects" type ( ... )

Myths erudito June 19 2005, 01:13:09 UTC

On the chain of reason, your point is correct, though I was thinking of the Control Emissions Is Really Important argument, in which case the reasoning chain still applies

The claim that all climate scientists agree is simply not true, though oft-repeated. There is broad agreement that there is some likely warming and that is about it. The level, degree of human contribution and seriousness are still much disputed, it is just the dispute doesn't get much of a run, not least because turning the weather into a coherent story with goodies and baddies is just so attractive for media. (And provides lots of opportunity for bureaucratic empire-building, dinning governments for research money and beating green credentials which appeal to middle class Western voters, rather than more urgent environmental issues which affect folk elsewhere.)

There are some starting links here, if you are interested ( ... )

Re: Myths taavi June 19 2005, 01:57:53 UTC

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222... )

PS taavi June 19 2005, 01:59:10 UTC

Hope you don't mind me hopping into your journal and arguing btw. I'm not sure we've met IRL, but we seem to share a lot of friends, and I enjoy debating these sorts of issues.

Thread 10

Just sometimes..... thebaronmk1 June 19 2005, 22:36:18 UTC

Well all the rational arguments have been made eloquently by lokicarbis and taavis so let me be the irrational one and say "For the sake of everyone - please wake up and SEE what is happening in the world ( ... )

Re: Just sometimes..... erudito June 20 2005, 04:03:07 UTC

The global dimming thing is something rather different surely?

Part of my problem is that
(1) I remember the Ice-Age-Is-Coming scare of the 1970s, pushed by some of the same people
(2) some really dodgy arguments have been pushed on this one
(3) I merely insist people put the evidence properly instead of endless arguments from authority
(4) I am perfectly aware of various professional consensuses which are complete crap
(5) want something other than ad hoc explanations of why the balloons and satellite and rural weather stations do not show what received wisdom says they should.

Moreover, the ABC is a particularly dubious source, since I am aware of how shonky their coverage is on particular issues

As for the "greatest danger", I have never seen any good *evidence* for that. Not least because the effects will be both positive and negative.

Re: Just sometimes..... thebaronmk1 June 20 2005, 05:14:21 UTC

A reply to some points ( ... )

Re: Just sometimes..... erudito June 20 2005, 10:25:32 UTC

There are all sorts of things which don't cost very much and could be done. The argument isn't really about that, it's about the more expensive measures.

As for good and bad effects, more CO2 obviously means more plant growth. Warming is definitely better than cooling.

Shrinking polar caps actually are not automatic signs of warming. It may well be that polar ice caps have very long-term internal patterns. That was certainly a very live theory in glaciology 5 years ago (not up on the latest). (After all, in geological history, Earth has wavered between effectively no ice caps to much bigger ones without any intervention by homo sapiens.)

I don't mind balance of probabilities for such matters, though the more expensive the measures being enjoined, the greater the certainty required to justify them.

Thread 6