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
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?
Reply
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.
Reply
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 ( ... )
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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 ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Leave a comment