Are you allowed to shout 'FIRE' in a burning auditorium? by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by CallMeSerenity:
I enjoy Canttakethesky's very articulate writing and applaude her use of big words.

Hey, I, myself, often employ an eclectic array of forceful and perfunctory terms in order to proliferate my mental schisms- even polynomials!

Ouch. That brained my hurt Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 17, 2005 5:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Anyhow, thanks for makin' this particular thread most interesting, Finn.

Happy to be of service.

Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
So, maybe we need a couple more wars and a few more major bird-flu or ebola epidemic to help thin out the herd a bit.

That’s certainly the worst case scenario.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by CallMeSerenity:
I agree with Finn that we need better, cleaner and more regulated nuclear power

I think he wanted less regulation, like in competition would naturally produce the best made and safest reactors. Don't know myself if it'd work that way, but...
Nice to have another voice here CallMeSerenity.

Fusionman Chrisisall

Something like that. I was thinking more along the lines of reducing regulation to make nuclear power more competitive with coal and gas. But explicit legal regulation is not really as big a problem as the implicit commercial and public regulation. Protracted lawsuits by environmental groups are the principle reason why nuclear power plants are so difficult to build. The NRC has done some things recently to help alleviate this problem, but clearly not enough. What we need is not so much less regulation but better defined regulation, maybe. We need regulation that provides for safe operation of nuclear reactors without hamstringing the commercial nuclear industry, and indeed forcing the industry to a complete halt.

In a nutshell.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 4:18 AM

I recently heard on NPR that they're trying to streamline licensing and construction permits, decide on one or two designes to use all over, and take care of the NIMBY problem by giving free electricity in a certain radius around the reactor, like 10 miles or something. Also that Yucca Mountain isn't the place to store the waste, but they're workin' on where else might be ultimatly suitable. And they mentioned a time frame of getting this all goin' in like ten years.
Hell, for free electricity, I just might WANT to live near a reactor (they could let the community pick the colour for it, even let the kids graffiti it to make it more town-friendly).
I think the next generation of reactors will probably run much better than present ones, some of them are like, even older than me!

But still, as ever, FUSIONMAN Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 8:15 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
I am saying the conclusions drawn from these data might be hasty. Do they really indicate overall rising temperatures?

Yes. Again, you are confounding data and conclusions. The data monotonically shows that global temperatures are going up. Faster in some cases depending on latitude or elevation (for example), slower in others, but undeniably going up, beyond the error of the measurement. As to whether or not these measurements are representative of the global trend, the answer is yes.

Quote:
Obviously someone thought surface ocean temperature is a good indicator. What about stratosphere temperature, or ocean temperature 1000 ft deep, or soil temperatures 10 feet deep?

You are displaying a serious amount of ignorance or willful deceit. If I wanted to measure how much sunlight the Earth's surface absorbs, would I measure in a cave where the sun don't shine? If I wanted to measure tropospheric heat-trapping, would I measure the stratosphere?

Quote:
If indeed those temperature measurements are considered representative, the next assumption to question is are they significant

I have read the IPCC report, which contains the relevant data and statistical discussion. I suggest you read it as well.

Quote:
..many of the extreme climates of the past have been assigned actual causes: ...But these factors are no longer in play. To look at those past climates for comparison would be in error. /Really? There is more interpretation for ya.

Not really. One example, the past eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, and its present relatively circular and centered orbit which are both well documented by the astro-physicists. You don't seem to have a significant physics background. Suffice it to say that relativistically large and slow-moving objects can have current and past orbits calculated. Past orbits calculated by astrophysicists, and past global climate extremes documented by geologists correlate: further distance from the sun correlates with extreme cold, closer distance with extreme warmth. This is simply not a point of debate, unless you want to throw out all the physics that makes it possible to explore space, and all the geology that tells us of dinosaurs and Pangaea.

Quote:
Have you considered that by the time anthropogenic global warming is 'proven' it will be too late to actually do anything about it? / That is exactly the kind of catastrophic, alarmist interpretation that I believe is unwarranted by the data.

Strangely, this is yet another principle (the precautionary principle) of which you seem unaware. It's basically risk analysis.

Quote:
The "consensus" in GW is very much an artifact of funding and political rhetoric. I believe using government coercion to enforce one point of view, when there is still a debate going on, is, to say the least, premature.

The consensus is global. Whose funding and politics are you talking about?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 9:28 AM

The “consensus” is more a product of political debate and journalism then science. The nature of this supposed “consensus” varies dramatically from scientist to scientist, suggesting no consensus at all. Generally “consensus” means that scientists agree on something, in this case, evidentially it means something different, because scientists do not agree, except in the braodest terms.

The “consensus” on global warming is just one of many attempts to introduce authoritative dogma into science. The data is inconclusive. There cannot be a “consensus” in science if the data is inconclusive. These are contradictory ideas. Those who insist that the science is settled should be required to indicate exactly what they believe is settled.

When it comes down to it, those who claim such a “consensus” exists are often advocates of the so-called ‘precautionary principle,’ which begs the question. The “consensus” is then a tool used to convince others to support such precautions, not in fact a product of scientific agreement. If such a consensus actually existed then there would be no reason for a precautionary principle, as the proposed catastrophic effects could presumably be scientifically demonstrated.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 10:43 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
The data is inconclusive.

I suggest you also read the report before you discuss it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 10:54 AM

I don't know what report you're referring to, but if by chance you mean the IPCC report, I have read several.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 11:19 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Then you can't honestly say

Quote:
The data is inconclusive

since the report assigns probability ranges to each proposal. The phrase 'inconclusive' becomes meaningless in the face of detailed 'likelihood' analysis.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 11:46 AM

Actually I can honestly say that, and I did. One’s assessment of the probability of a proposal does not make the evidence in favor or against such a proposal more or less conclusive. That's politics, not science.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 12:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
One’s assessment of the probability of a proposal does not make the evidence in favor or against such a proposal more or less conclusive.

That assessment was made by scientists doing a scientific study on the reliability of the data. It's science, not politics.

PS Many analyses which rely on many different kinds of data generated by many different projects (sometimes called a meta-analysis) specifically MUST develop uncertainty statements, otherwise the analysis is not credible science.

You say the data is inconclusive simply b/c you assert it is. Show me a study which evaluates the BODY of data and states it is inconclusive, or otherwise assigns error statistics.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You say the data is inconclusive simply b/c you assert it is. Show me a study which evaluates the BODY of data and states it is inconclusive, or otherwise assigns error statistics.

From the IPCC report:

Concerning regional projected climate change:
“Despite recent improvements and developments, regionalization research is still a maturing process and the related uncertainties are still rather poorly known.”
Page 623

Concerning rising ocean levels:
“Sea level change involves many components of the climate system and thus requires a broad range of research activities. . . . We recognize that it is important to assign probabilities to projections, but this requires a more critical and quantitative assessment of model uncertainties than is possible at present.”
Page 681

Concerning extreme climatic events as a result of increased mean global temperature:
“Extreme events are, almost by definition, of particular importance to human society. Consequently, the importance of understanding potential extreme events is first order. The evidence is mixed and data continue to be lacking to make conclusive cases.”
Page 774

This is just a small sample of things that I remember from reading it. If one bothers to read the report one would find that it is indeed riddled with such statements attributing to the inconclusiveness of the evidence. One finds it interesting that after criticizing several people for discussing the report without (based on your assessment) having read it, you would be unaware of such statements. Perhaps you may consider reading the report yourself.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
This is just a small sample of things that I remember from reading it. If one bothers to read the report one would find that it is indeed riddled with such statements attributing to the inconclusiveness of the evidence.

It is also full of statements that assign better than even to much better than even levels of probability to major conlusions: global mean temperature is going up, it will continue to go up, it is caused by humans, and while the ultimate magnitude and specific effects on particular areas can't be predicted with certainty, temperatures will continue to rise with deleterious effects overall. I don't have the document on this computer so I can't provide quotes at the moment.

But you are picking relatively trivial details and avoiding the major conclusions. Why is that?

PS I am staring at about 5 hours of work yet to do this eve. I need to sign off for awhile.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 18, 2005 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
It is also full of statements that assign better than even to much better than even levels of probability to major conlusions: global mean temperature is going up, it will continue to go up, it is caused by humans, and while the ultimate magnitude and specific effects on particular areas can't be predicted with certainty, temperatures will continue to rise with deleterious effects overall. I don't have the document on this computer so I can't provide quotes at the moment.

I don’t doubt that the mean global temperature may be increasing, although I do question how deleterious it will be, as the evidence in that area is sketchy at best. In any event, you asked for a study that evaluates the body of data and states that it is inconclusive. There you go.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But you are picking relatively trivial details and avoiding the major conclusions. Why is that?

Trivial details, huh? Rising oceans and extreme climatic events are two the most often cited “effects” of global warming by advocates of the precautionary principle. Clearly there wouldn’t seem to be anything “trivial” about such claims when they are being used in unfounded, emotional pleas to justify policy.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2005 6:15 AM

Global Warming is in play, and to tell the truth, if the world tried real hard, I don't think it could change fast enough to halt, much less reverse the long term effects.
It might be more prudent to try and plan for having a little less shoreline worldwide- that's all. Have children in third world countries sew up more parkas for the coming temperature backlash. Things change. It's not like it's gonna happen overnight, like in The Day After Tomorrow (an entertaining little piece of nonsense). Look what happened to Indonesia; I think the world can handle gradual sea level changes pretty well, it's those grand events we have a hard time with.
And look at the bright side, if there is another Ice Age in store for this planet it'll create all manner of new industries!
I don't mean to downplay it as much as to say the road ahead may get a little bumpy, so we just gotta check our shocks and make sure they're workin'.

Upbeat Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2005 12:29 PM

THEGREYJEDI

Um...

Quote:
Not really. One example, the past eccentricity of the Earth's orbit, and its present relatively circular and centered orbit which are both well documented by the astro-physicists.

Elliptical. Elliptical orbit. Hence the change in length of the day. In addition to the angle of the planet of course.

Let me preface by saying that I don't spend much time in effort into indepth research of global warming, it's causes, the enviromental and energy reports, but I am, in a general level, more educated than most people on the topics discussed in this thread. And now I shall posit my, tardy, opinion:

Global warming is a sticky issue. Whether it is a natural trend or something anthropogenic(sp? New word! Yay!) doesn't really matter. There are pollution concerned that need to be addressed regardless of GW.

Deforestation - A Very Bad Thing. Granted, people gotta eat, and Amazonian soil must be some damn good soil. Someone somewhere just has to accept a hit to the pocket and develop less drastic measures of developing the Third World without making a mess of it. God gave us dominion over the earth. He didn't say "Go ye and kill this world I have made for you."

Fossil Fuels - A Serious Issue. Americans balk at the idea of paying $2 a gallon. Well, it's just over $2 here in NC. Price and participation may vary. Canadians pay as much per liter. But if one goes back 5 years, averages were about $.90 less. Gas price increases make everything more expensive. There are political reasons for this price increase. America just needs to take over OPEC and drop the hell out of the price of oil. Of course, there's only a finite amount of oil. Eventually we're going to run out. And long before we run out, it's going to get ridiculously expensive. We need to kick the habit. But I think we're on our way to that, at least as Americans. We may be the last to jump on the Not-Oil bandwagon, but we can, sadly, afford to stay off the longest. I like nuclear power. I'd vote to approve one. Yeah, there are risks, but not nearly the immediate environmental risks of "traditional" power plants. I did some research into nuclear power for an engineering project a few years ago. Nuclear is the way to go. It was the way to go many years ago, but was just ahead of its time. Technology exists now that didn't exist then. We must make it public knowledge that nuclear power is safe and much cleaner. Ease off nuclear. Let it happen. Don't be hatin'.

Population - Kill Asia. All of it. Except Japan. Then we can move Americans into the freshly unpopulated places, give them jobs and land, boom. And with China and India dead, that's one third of the world's population.

Population, seriously - Growth with respect to the environment. Keep the trees, people. I hate seeing yards, one, two, even three acres, that's AAAAAALLLLLL grass. Trees good. Need lumber? Tree farms. Cut. Replant. Grow. Expensive at first? Maybe. Better in the long run? Definitely. Our innovations became our worst enemies. The sick and old do not die, but live on, consuming resources. It is not the natural way. So we need to get over the natural way. Space colonies are a neat idea. Manufacturing in a micro-gravity environment. Perhaps terraforming desert land into viable farmland? Oh noes! Destruction of the natural beautiful dry and mostly useless sand and rock and bugs OMGWTFBBQ! No, little Timmy, not all of it. Not even a lot of it. But let's take Nevada, for example. Lots of dirt. And Las Vegas. Put some farms out there, man. Terraform! Food! I know the logistics are...complicated, but it's what we're looking at.

GW - It might be an issue. It might not. But, much like fossil records, it's not something that is, easily and indisputably, observable in my lifetime. Let's do what we need to do anyway. Clean it up a bit. Phase out fossil fuels. Shift towards nuclear power(fission and, OMG, fusion). Encourage commercial growth with respect for the environment. Make it unprofitable to cut corners environmentally. Really unprofitable. Like cheaper to do the expensive overhauls unprofitable. I'd do it. If I were president I'd risk a re-election to get that stuff passed. That and some hardcore financial reforms. Might even raise taxes. On the rich. Because it needs to be done. And to think, here I am a financially conservative Republican. But I love nature. I live in a city, but a very green city. I like clean. I believe technology, progress, and the environment can coexist. I think it has to in order to coexist much longer.

And legally, Chrisisall, I think you are allowed to shout "Fire!" in a burning auditorium. I noticed your post had little to do with this legal conundrum.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Engineer - USS SereniTREE
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
Real Fans Wait - 09/30/05

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2005 1:06 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Hi Rue,

I am going to drop out of our discussion. It takes a lot of time, and it would be worth it to me ONLY if we could engage in some meaningful dialogue that helps us learn new information. That is only possible if there is some modicum of respect for what each other has to say. It seems clear to me, however, you have nothing to say to me but patronizing derision. Moreover, we simply focus on completely different issues. When I give a random example to illustrate a principle of scientific method, you jump on the *example* to cast aspersions on my intellect--missing the whole point about the principle. This sort of banter can't lead to meaningful dialogue either. No meaningful dialogue = absolute waste of time.

Best to you,

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

PS. Finn, I would like to engage in a more in-depth discussion with you on GW, one day when I've read as much as you have.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2005 2:35 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
And to think, here I am a financially conservative Republican.

What kind of gorram 'Republican' are you?!?
Oh, the thoughtful, intelligent type, I guess.
I don't generally consider myself a Republican, but I find myself in almost total agreement with you here.
I mentioned in another thread that there were only two kinds of Republicans and Democrats: Thoughtful ones or ignorant ones, and did I get crap for that.
Anyway, I find most Republicans and Democrats to be in the second set, thanks for not bein' one of them.
And thanks for the cool post.

Thoughtful (I hope) Conspiracy Theorist Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 19, 2005 5:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
I like nuclear power. I'd vote to approve one. Yeah, there are risks, but not nearly the immediate environmental risks of "traditional" power plants. I did some research into nuclear power for an engineering project a few years ago. Nuclear is the way to go. It was the way to go many years ago, but was just ahead of its time. Technology exists now that didn't exist then. We must make it public knowledge that nuclear power is safe and much cleaner. Ease off nuclear. Let it happen. Don't be hatin'.

Precisely my earlier point. Although somewhat more colloquial then I stated it.

Just a quite note: the Kyoto protocol if implemented and faithfully applied worldwide (which is probably nonsense) might reduce carbon emissions by only single digit percentages. On the other hand nuclear power produces relatively no carbon emissions, and the waste that it does produce is on the order of 10^4 times less per kWh then a typical coal plant, and as research continues nuclear power becomes more efficient. Until and if fusion power becomes feasible, we’re not going to get a better deal then that.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
PS. Finn, I would like to engage in a more in-depth discussion with you on GW, one day when I've read as much as you have.

I’ll look forward to it.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 20, 2005 9:46 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by TheGreyJedi:
Global warming ...doesn't really matter. There are pollution concerned that need to be addressed regardless of GW.

Deforestation - A Very Bad Thing.

Fossil Fuels - A Serious Issue.

Yes, yes, yes. Thank you, and well said.

Quote:
Population - Kill Asia. All of it. Except Japan. Then we can move Americans into the freshly unpopulated places, give them jobs and land, boom. And with China and India dead, that's one third of the world's population.

This will probably reduce CO2 levels more than fossil fuel regulations. (It's a joke. I'm Asian--and not Japanese either.)

Quote:
Let's do what we need to do anyway. Clean it up a bit. Phase out fossil fuels. Shift towards nuclear power(fission and, OMG, fusion). Encourage commercial growth with respect for the environment. Make it unprofitable to cut corners environmentally.

Bullseye!

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 8:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,
As I recall, I was discussing this with CANTTAKESKY when you intruded with your pointless 'points'. The original discussion was about:

Quote:
Do they really indicate overall rising temperatures?
Obviously someone thought surface ocean temperature is a good indicator. What about stratosphere temperature, or ocean temperature 1000 ft deep, or soil temperatures 10 feet deep?
If indeed those temperature measurements are considered representative, the next assumption to question is are they significant.
That is exactly the kind of catastrophic, alarmist interpretation that I believe is unwarranted by the data. (Tho my intention re being 'too late' was geared toward momentum, not extremes, a point I didn't get to clarify before you intruded.)
The "consensus" in GW is very much an artifact of funding and political rhetoric. I believe using government coercion to enforce one point of view, when there is still a debate going on, is, to say the least, premature.

These were the major points under discussion. Did I address regional (v global) climate change? Rising ocean levels? Extreme climatic events? No. How are your comments anything but a straw man argument?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 23, 2005 9:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

CANTTAKESKY,

I'm sorry you feel that way. I obviously need to work on my tone in those instances where I offend but don't mean to.

But my responses were serious which is why they were point by point, in detail, at length.

You wanted to discuss, for example, if a 1 degree change was significant (deg C I take it to be). (And also not to get bolluxed-up between 'analytically significant' which is outside of the error or the measurement and 'globally meaningful', which is what you seemed to mean in context.)

Well, suppose you could sort of imagine - would it really be so bad if summer and winter were just one degree warmer?

Or you could read the really picky details - that it's not that 'summer' is warmer, it's that summer nights are 2 degrees warmer in the temperate zones, but 4 degrees warmer near the poles; that small differences of one degree determine when the snow will stick or melt in fall and spring, and actually shift the timing of whole seasons by weeks on either end, and also melt glaciers and ice packs; or that the boreal belt around the globe is being stressed to death by nightime heat.

So while 1 degree doesn't seem like it feels all that different to me, it is only an average whose extremes do have a large effect on the world in terms of seasons, precipitation, glaciers and ice packs, and plants and animals.

I would be willing to discuss these things very specifically, if that is what you care to do.

Also, the most recent IPCC report really does an excellent job summarizing the body of research on pivotal topics.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 2:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
These were the major points under discussion. Did I address regional (v global) climate change? Rising ocean levels? Extreme climatic events? No. How are your comments anything but a straw man argument?

Ah, the quintessential Rue argument on global warming, sectarian as ever. If the evidence doesn’t support what rue wants to know about global warming, then dismiss it.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 10:41 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Not sectarian.

You derailed the discussion I was having with someone else, with extraneous points of YOUR own, and with demands that I respond to YOU YOU YOU, or be called names, by you.

I need to get a lot of things done in the near-term, and debating you is very low on my list, pretty much where YOU put yourself. When I get the time, I'll think about discussing the IPCC report in detail with you, with quotes. My first impulse, though, is to not reward your behavior with an ongoing dialogue.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 24, 2005 2:15 PM