It's all over but for the sweating?

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

In related news - this might be a renewable technology which actually works : BBC News - Pentland Firth tidal turbine project given consent

Moon power! Told ya'.

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

It is here

Climate Consensus and

but two problems.

1. You have to pay to get it
2. It includes Moncton as an author, which sets my alarm bells going.

It's worth reading McIntyre's post on the post-dating at STW.

So I've read McIntyre's post, and I'm struck by something.

In response to a paper discussing the tendency of climate science deniers to accept conspiracy theories, you've provided two "objections post that does NOT talk about methodology or accuracy, but instead focuses on the minutia of whether or not someone was deliberately changing the publishing date of a blog post, in order to make themselves look good.

The other is a paper co-authored by somebody that has openly stated that he believes climate change is a conspiracy to establish a one-world socialist government.

While neither of these things are more than anecdotal, this particular set of objections is not exactly convincing.

Do you see where I'm coming from here?

[P-hack]

You are not very convincing about the dangers, disease and famine? really? And it is because of consumption, which is a function of population. Have & eat cake much? We had forced integration, why not forced interbreeding so nobody thinks they are so special they have to outbreed anyone else?

[Alteredstory]

Um... The decline in crop production is documented and a matter public record. Do you honestly think that a sudden large hit to global food supply has nothing to do with the availability of food?

The recent famine in Somalia is ALSO a matter of public record, and was due to - again - a drought.

The spread of malaria has already been documented, with cases being reported in Nairobi now, which used to be too cold for the malaria mosquito.

I'm not sure what you're having difficulty with here.

I'm also, to be honest, not sure where you're getting your rather odd notions about "integration" and "breeding" - care to unpack that one for me? I'm not sure how it's related.

[P-hack]

It is pretty fundamental, ask yourself why people breed. It is basically the ultimate expression of our ego, selfish in nature, or you want more laborers in your clan for the fields.

More people cause more consumption.

You wish to use the vulnerability of certain countries to make an emotional plea, without connecting all the dots. The land does not support the population, that happens sometimes, it isn't your fault. The political lines between countries prevent mass shifting of populations (because that country has to take car of their own and may be overwhelmed otherwise).

So having one giant country solves your concerns, they ARE us. But each country is prideful, like each person. Each feels disconnected.

But of course there is advantage to diversity as well.

So you are saying "this is BAD", and I think that zooming in on this one issue, and expecting everyone to share your values is arguably "Bad".

[Alteredstory]

Reducing a population's size can be good for that population, but that depends entirely on how that reduction is accomplished.

If you do it through habitat destruction, or a sharp decline in available resources, ESPECIALLY while increasing the risk of natural disasters, you greatly increase the odds of extinction.

Global warming would be the worst method for population reduction you could use, with the possible exception of global nuclear war. I've heard some bad arguments surrounding this issue, but that's right up there among the worst.

[P-hack]

How it is the worst? What value system do you judge that by?

[Alteredstory]

Originally Posted by P-hack

How it is the worst? What value system do you judge that by?

Since you didn't specify which "worst" you were referring to, I can answer both.

If you're trying to reduce the population in order to stabilize it, and head off bigger problems due to overpopulation in the future, then I'm pretty sure I already covered it - climate change is an uncontrolled experiment that will almost certainly do a lot of damage, and is likely, but not guaranteed to reduce the population, while increasing the odds of large disasters that can wipe out local groups.

Smaller population size, plus increased risk of localized natural disasters, equals increased risk of extinction.

If you're OK with human extinction, then there's not really much more to say.

As to why it's a bad argument, it's poorly thought out, and doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

[TheEnemy]

I have been busy with work and home projects, so these are late but here anyways. The SOURCE satellite had a battery cell failure and is no longer functioning properly so no TSI data for the last 2 months.

Global Analysis - July 2013 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Global Highlights
•The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for July 2013 was the sixth highest on record, at 0.61°C (1.10°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.4°F).
•The global land surface temperature was 0.78°C (1.40°F) above the 20th century average of 14.3°C (57.8°F), marking the eighth warmest July on record. For the ocean, the July global sea surface temperature was 0.54°C (0.97°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.5°F), the fifth warmest July on record.
•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the January–July period (year-to-date) was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), tying with 2003 as the sixth warmest such period on record.

Global Analysis - August 2013 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Global Highlights
•The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for August 2013 tied with 2005 as the fourth highest in the 1880–2013 record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F).

•The global land surface temperature was 0.77°C (1.39°F) above the 20th century average of 13.8°C (56.9°F), the 11th warmest August on record. For the global oceans, the August average sea surface temperature was 0.57°C (1.03°F) above the 20th century average of 16.4°C (61.4°F), tying with 1998, 2003, 2005, and 2009 as the record highest for August.

•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the June–August period was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 15.6°C (60.1°F), tying with 2009 as the fifth warmest such period on record.

•The June–August worldwide land surface temperature was 0.85°C (1.53°F) above the 20th century average, the seventh warmest such period on record. The global ocean surface temperature for the same period was 0.53°C (0.95°F) above the 20th century average, the fifth warmest June–August on record.

•The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date (January–August) was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.3°F), tying with 2003 as the sixth warmest such period on record.



Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

[P-hack]

Your presumption never ceases to amaze altered you would be a much happier person if you accept the world as it is instead of assuming it is wrong. I don't prefer human extinction, speaking of alarmism. But you seem to think that this one issue is the most important one, and indeed it has dominated the discussions and policy, there is always a bigger picture. Good? Bad? Those are moral judgements, dou think it is the role of science to assert morality? Haven't we been trying to do that with our belief systems as well with countless negative effects? (I.e. passing judgement on contraception and etc, and general conflict/manifest destiny mentality?) You are only taking the most cursory evaluation of the motivations here and only looking at part of the whole, judging who is good and bad in the process.