MtnGoat
-
Posts
739 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MtnGoat
-
-
"Oh wait you guys are right. How silly of me. DRILL ANWAR NOW!!!"
didn't call you silly nor expect you to suddenly agree. Merely making some points I find interesting ones.
**********************88
"I think maybe the National Academy of Science has a lot more real science to back up it's claims than some goat."
Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. I've never seen any discussion of why they consider any particular period a baseline, which is troubling since actual science depends on clear definitions of parameters, baselines, and the role and nature of controls used to evaluate claims. This isn't crackpot stuff, this is basic science and *every* theorist must deal with it.
Likewise, I've seen no discussion of the failure of their models in running past conditions, only assurances their future ones are correct, even though they vary wildly depending on whose model is used.
"I know you won't change your mind, but your views are in the overwhelming minority."
Funny thing is, reality is not determined by a vote, no matter how many people agree. The earth was not flat even as everyone agreed it was, the continents were drifting a tiny bit every day, as all the experts of the day declared Wegener crazy. It makes no difference who is in what numbers, science depends on *proof*, not a count of hands.
"Where did you get your info? Probably the Cato institute or some oil company institute of, "science.""
What, now factual science isn't factual? Do I get to demean your sources by political alignments rather than hard data too? If you think who data comes from is more important than the empiricism of the data and wether it can stand on it's own regardless of source, we'll never be able to agree on anything and research is pointless. Oh, your data is from that green group, right? Must mean it's false.
-
"The question I have to ask is - Do we have to have proof that the environment is fucked up before you start trying to take care of it."
generally, not at all, IMO. But we're not talking about recycling bottles here, or using better building materials or paying closer attention to how we grow and harvest trees, we're talking about committing absolutely enormous amounts of resources that could be used for other purposes. For really big claims, such as the ones we're discussing, yes I expect solid proof.
Not fudging charts to exclude thousands of years of natural variation of greater magnitude in order to make the last few decades look extreme, when they are not. Not forgetting to mention that climate models cannot even simulate the past. Not picking out one naturally occuring "pollutant" to control, (CO2), while ignoring another added by just as many industrial processess which has vastly more greenhouse capability, which is known and admitted yet not publicized because it looks silly....water vapor.
"I mean most people would agree that the exhaust from our cars is at the least unhealthy for us to breath and MAY have an effect on the world as a whole. So. . why don't we try to find alternatives anyway?"
We are. Work proceeds around the planet on all kinds of alternatives. When the alternatives are cost effective they will naturally fill market niches where they apply. I do not support subsidies of *any* energy industry, oil included, each should compete sans subsidy and it's price distorting effects.
-
"MtnGoat, I am not an educated climatologist, but even the most well educated in the science (and the UW has probably the best program with super-global climate modeling computers) can definitly conclude that global-warming is anthropogenically produced."
I do not believe this is true. From what I understand not even *one* climate model, used by any team, can even reproduce past weather from one fixed, known point to another fixed, known point in the *past*, say 1950-1970. If your models cannot even reproduce events with known ending and beginning states, I don't see how one could use them for any definite conclusions about the future when they fail for past events.
Further, the proposed climate forcing we are supposedly seeing entirely sidesteps the issue of where "normal" is supposed to be. Who chose the early part of the 20th as a baseline and why, given fluctuations over centuries and millenia? And when so much natural change occurs, how is it we can be certain our efforts would not be swamped by the rest of a natural cycle already in progress?
Kyoto itself proposes we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to *delay*, not end, warming by about 5 years after a century of actions. Even if everything they claim is true, the benefits do not match the cost IMO.
"By the way, I believe that your own federal government has finally acknowledged that we are largely responsible."
If they are using the same models that can't even "predict" weather in the past, you're probably right!
thanks for the comments, it's a pleasure to discuss this with someone without any accusations or name calling!
next************
"What really pisses me off is that we have wasted all that money on all those studies by all those leading scientists when all we really had to do was ask George W or MtnGoat."
wasting money is what research is all about. One can never tell what will turn up. I don't consider study money wasted in this case regardless if I agree or not, because unless the work is done there are no data points either way.
besides, if you're concerned about leading scientists, maybe you want to make sure you hear what *all* of them have to say. Neither the IPCC decision *nor* the recent EPA work represent all views, in fact the IPCC version specifically says it's "conclusions" do *not* represent a concensus of those participating. Something the press and greeniacs like to gloss over....
"Oh shit! What if Mtn Goat becomes President some day!!?"
In that case we'll have a non political, public forum where each side can present it's case free of spin. Science and politics are a lousy mix.
*And* we'll make sure to discuss just why scientists are assuming there is some perfect temperature to maintain, an assumption I have still not seen an answer for...
next**************
"The National Academy of Sciences doesn't agree with you MtnG. The Bush admin ask them to do a study before an international summit, and they found that the global temp will increase at leas 2 degrees if we keep on pumping shit into it."
That's fine, I don't expect everyone to agree on anything. I would expect their models to successfully model the past, before predicting the future, however.
"But what do you care you probably think Mt Rainier would look a lot better without glaciers."
I do not. But what I think is beside the point, isn't it? Why is it doubt of huge claims made by people using arbitrary baselines and models with flaws they cannot explain, means I hate the environment?
-
Drill it, and do so using modern methods to reduce impacts.
As for greenhouse fears, IMO they are wildly off target. There is no "normal" temperature for the Earth, it varies all by itself for reasons unknown. Deciding the early 20th cent is some baseline for "normal" ignores all the warming that had taken place prior to that, and is especially interesting given the fact that warming occurred without industrial CO2 output at that time. Climate records for the last few millenia shows swings far in excess of current temps both colder and hotter. That the earth is warming is probably true, we're in an interglacial. That it's human caused, I have severe doubts about in light of past natural fluctuations.
-
why don't you just have them add you to their permit when they get it? party sizes of up to 8 are ok.
-
Problem is, though, all that assumes the single edge you are depending stays put. Check out board riders smacking their heads (and faces) on the ice on a lousy day at Snoqualmie.
Sure, you've got more carving power on single edge, but then, it's also the only edge you've got. When you lose an edge on skis, you simply switch to the other ski. On this one, I vote for the skis being safer.
-
"You give me a list of scientists who think global warming is not a real and significant problem I'll give you back a list that is at least 100 times as long."
Trouble is, reality isn't up for a vote. When that list was "who thinks the earth is flat", there was a time when it was also 100% of "scientists". Ditto for the expansion of the universe, or continental drift. Make your case based on data, not how many buy it.
-
"really think christain tainted science is very subjective and is used mostly now to sell certain ideas, laws and busniess practices....."
"Christian tainted" science? What is this?
-
"As in the application of knowledge gained through experience; if it goes unheeded, doesn't that say something about an individual's intelligence?"
It might, but then there is also the matter of value judgement, a factor commonly ignored when looking at someone else's decisions. Each of us makes value judgements about what risks to accept, and do so even knowing our choices can have disastrous end results, because to us, the tradeoff and benefit is worth the risk.
A simple example suits this board just fine, the completely arbitrary choice to engage in outdoor sports which are known to cause death. Some might say taking risks not absolutely necessary for a long life is never worth the pleasure or satisfaction of the risky activity, but of course many of us disagree. In this way I think a case can be made that the intelligence of decisions cannot be judged by evidence of risk alone.
-
"Yeah, you go out in the hills in winter and feel the cold on your face, but you're most likely clothed in plastics, carrying distilled fuels that you burn in objects made of refined metals for heat... and the list goes on. Rather removed from "nature" in my book."
Nature is great in many ways, but I treasure my removal from it in other ways, and those synthetic garments are one of those ways. Not dying of whooping cough, polio, smallpox, or a badly broken leg is another. Not starving to death because my crop was destroyed by climactic conditions, still another. Even having crops instead of hunt and gather, still another. And genetically engineered rice and wheats, even better.
I guess I kind of find "closeness" to nature highly overated and something well fed people not at the mercy of nature are likely to think they want. Check out the new series on PBS called "frontier house" where modern day families get close to nature using only 1883 techology and decide how close is close!
-
didn't know that, makes sense. Don't boil much water that isn't being used for meals directly.
-
ditto on the gatorade bottles, you don't even need to fill 'em for the first use! Plus they're lighter than nalgene. I also bring a empty two liter pop bottle folded flat for an around camp reservoir, cuts down on trips to the water source.
-
No, it doesn't take a scientist to generate anecdotal evidence, but it does to generate controlled, testable evidence that can be used for actual impact measurements later.
Lots of folks justifiably complain about claimed impacts being a lot of arm waving, having someone do it right, or at least in a manner that's competent and reviewable, moves the debate out of the arbitrary sphere and into one where data means something because you can review the entire process.
So even though it seems picky and simple, and in many ways it is simple work, it's still worth doing IMO, so the debates over impact become discussions about measurable conditions instead of anecdotal arguments.
-
"Rock climbing harms cliff ecosystems
While it stands to reason that rock climbers might harm habitats such as the ancient, stunted forests that grow on cliffs around the world, there has been little unambiguous evidence that this is so. Now the first study to isolate rock climbing from other factors confirms that the sport damages cliff ecosystems. "Our work clearly shows that rock outcrop ecosystems suffer dramatically when exposed to recreational rock climbing," says Douglas Larson of the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada. This work is presented in the April issue of Conservation Biology by Larson and Michele McMillan, who is also of the University of Guelph.
The popularity of rock climbing has soared in North America over the last 20 years, disturbing areas that had been untouched for ages. However, previous studies on the ecological effects of rock climbing have been contradictory.
McMillan and Larson studied the ecological effects of rock climbing on vegetation (vascular plants, bryophytes and lichens) on the heavily-climbed limestone cliffs of the Niagara Escarpment, which is near Toronto in southern Ontario. These cliffs have the most ancient forest east of the Rocky Mountains, with eastern white cedars that are more than 1,000 years old. The researchers compared the vegetation on three parts -- the top edge (plateau), the middle (cliff face) and the base (talus) -- of climbed and unclimbed cliffs.
The researchers found that rock climbing greatly decreases the diversity of vegetation on cliffs. Notably, climbed faces had only 4% as many vascular plant species as those that were unclimbed. Moreover, the diversity of bryophytes and lichens in climbed areas were roughly 30 and 40% of that in climbed areas, respectively.
Rock climbing also decreases the cover of vegetation on cliffs. For vascular plants, the cover on climbed plateau and talus was roughly 60% of that on unclimbed areas. For bryophytes, the cover on climbed plateau and talus was about a fifth of that on unclimbed areas. While climbing did not affect the extent of lichen cover, it did change the types of species that grow on cliffs. Delicate lichen species were replaced by tough ones: in unclimbed areas the most common lichens are so fragile that they crumble to the touch, while in climbed areas the most common lichens are so sturdy that they can even withstand rubbing.
McMillan and Larson also found that in climbed areas, the proportion of non-native plants was three times higher (81 vs. 27%). Rock climbing reduces plant density, thus increasing the number of sites where non-native plants can grow. Furthermore, rock climbers can introduce seeds and living pieces of non-native plants via their shoes, clothing and equipment.
To help protect cliff ecosystems, McMillan and Larson recommend banning new climbing routes in protected areas along the Niagara Escarpment, and explaining why to rock climbing associations and schools. "Recreationists are far more likely to abide by management plans when they are aware of the ecological rationale behind the restrictions," say the researchers."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-04/sfcb-rch040102.php
-
You mean if impacts are small they don't count?
-
Cripes, some folks really have a lack of smoking etiquette. Besides all the back and forth here among smokers of various vegetable products and those who don't, all I can see is a justified annoyance at some smokers who lack the common courtesy to step outside when partaking. I would expect better from people sharing a common and crowded living space.
-
Kinda depends on what one considers "working", doesn't it?
I mean, on the one hand when there is enough hut room and everybody fits inside, obviously you're reducing some camping impacts that previously occurred. And I assume somehow these legal construction of these huts would be able to get around the prohibitions on such structures in wilderness areas.
But then, you've got people with no common link other than they wanted to be outdoors for at least a night, all jammed into a hut and forced to get along. Muir can be hell for example. Differing sleep habits, schedules, cooking times, and to read in spray, problems with indoor smoking!
Then you also have the issue that some folks just wouldn't want any part of a hut situation even if there was space, which includes me. Unless of course the entire hut was empty, in which case I'd be glad to use it but I don't think that's very likely!
I don't really mind the idea if hut use was optional instead of mandatory, but suspect that once huts were in place, quite the reverse would occur.
ANWR drilling
in Climber's Board
Posted
"Since science is a human endeavor, it is not entirely possible to divorce it from politics. Surely you are not so naive as to think that scientists don't want to please their funding sources?"
The point remains that the use of good method will in fact expose faulty research if it does not meet the tests demanded by good method: repeatiblity, falsifiability, and predicatibility, among others.
Do I think groups do not skew their data sometimes? Of course not, but we can sort that out if we all agree on method and refuse to engage in debating whose source is better, instead of whose data and work is better and verifiable.
Far too many arenas are now poisoned for serious debate by the ad hominim style attacks on who funded what, instead of who proved what, and by what method. I propose we dispense with the concern over who funded what here in this thread, and instead focus on the claims they are making for their findings.
"You (I think it was you, apologies if I'm wrong or if I've misinterpreted) said that the market would settle everything out anyway, when the cost of alternatives came close to the status quo."
yes it was me, no worries.
"The longer one can avoid adding the full cost up for fossil fuels (if the climate change scenario is right) then the more the market is skewed by disinformation."
This why no players should be subsidized. Subsidy is market disinformation about price, choice, and scarcity. I agree everyone should pay the full cost of their choices, and this can be realized by not hiding the costs of making administrative, instead of market, choices of one item over another.
"There's nothing anymore pure about "The Market" than there is about "Science." Both are quite open to manipulation for the sake of making money."
This is true. However science tries to deal with verifiable absolutes, which are independtly provable and observed, while a market depends on the values of it's participants, many of which are unprovable by their very nature.This establishes a necessarily differing set of guidelines, but in neither case is manipulation by fraud acceptable.
"That being said, I've enjoyed your questions, and they will prod me into a little research sometime later when I don't feel guilty about avoiding what I should really be doing right now..."
I'm glad I sparked some questions, I'd like to know what you come across independently. I have no emnity towards the idea of warming theories, I am just very suspicious of the science for some of the reasons I have mentioned. Especially in light of the comments of it's supporters (one of whom claimed any doubts should be understated because the goal is just) and the political manipulations evident in Kyoto itself.
After all, I do not have to hold a PhD in climate theory to understand good method, and when a model cannot reproduce known events even a dumbass like me can ask why they think it should predict future ones with any accuracy whatsoever. Or ask basic questions like why proponents choose to represent a tiny fraction of the climate record when presenting historical data to the public at large.
I expect the give and take of such discussion to better define what is really going on, both politically and scientifically. I'm glad to see so many reasonable folks here, even if we disagree on this issue.