Pro Con Climate Change
Climate Debate Daily
U Chicago Climate Change Debate
Should Congress Address Climate Change?
ICECAP
Live Science Climate Change
CNN Costello Debate Climate Change
Guardian 5 Antarctic Facts
Intergovernmental Panel on CC
Skeptical Science
Climate Change Facts
UN Climate Summit
G2A Global Warming Revisited
Science of Global Warming Seeds2Learn Software
So here we go with some of the usual questions:
- Does abnormal climate change exist?
- If so, are the behaviors of humans causing this?
- If so, why are the deniers so adamant?
- If not, why do so many people believe it does?
- If so, how bad will it get?
- If so, how much financial and other sacrifices do we make today?
- If so, what will be the benefits?
Do we use our finances for "clean" energy rather than food, education, defense, etc?
Thoughts?
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)
92 comments:
A correction from Jerry.
"Fine, but if you call it "climate change" you've already lost the ability to see both sides. The proper definition of the problem is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW). It's not "climate change" if the only thing you predict is warming. Ever wonder why the name of the crisis got changed?"
Based on Hiram's comment in the GOP Survey post.
What are the FACTS regarding our climate and environment. (ie historical and current)
What are the theories regarding causation, potential consequences, potential severity, etc?
What are the potential consequences and their likelihood?
What are options regarding how to address the causation factors?
What are the potential costs / benefits of implementing these options?
What are the potential costs / of not implementing these options?
Who are the players on both sides?
What could motivate them with regard to this topic?
(ie coal mine owners: add/lose revenue and profits, researchers: add/lose research funding & fame, etc)
WP GOP Weatherman's View
Let's just start with the basic science, shall we? First of all, the "theory of CAGW" is not a scientific theory at all. It is a hypothesis, and doesn't become a theory until it predicts something, and that test agrees with the prediction. The only way to test this CAGW hypothesis is to wait 100 years and see if the "catastrophe" occurs while the atmospheric CO2 kept pace with the assumptions made. Even at that, there won't be (isn't yet, anyway) evidence that anthropogenic CO2 was the major contributor. Of course we can see how the "test" is progressing. So far, 48 of the 50 computerized climate models have failed to predict the last 15 years of actual observations, and the other two are on track to fail in the next year or two. If you are going to follow the Scientific Method to determine fact and truth, we must wait another 50 years or so before doing anything differently.
Back to severity... What is the result for humans if their hypothesis is correct?
Will we be able to reverse the trend 50 years from now?
The result for humans will be bad if they are correct and we do nothing. "Catastrophe," probably not, but bad. I consider the possibility that they are correct essentially zero, but it is not their prediction that concerns me, it is their remedy. By their own admission, and assuming they are 100% correct, a radical reduction in CO2 will cost the humans on this globe some $70 trillion in reduced lifestyle (opportunity costs) and reduce global temperatures 100 years hence by 0.07 degrees! The cost to ADAPT to global warming, which will still be necessary for everything beyond that 0.07 degrees, but for which we won't have the money, is estimated at 1/10 that much, IF AND WHEN it actually comes to pass. In other words, the cost to adapt if and when is much smaller than the cost to prevent, and astronomically better on a per-degree basis.
You should also be aware of the "official" prediction that if radical action is taken now, "CO2 levels will start going down about the year 2200." But of course we'll run out of fossil fuels before that, according to other predictions, so....
That $70 trillion will be spent on jobs, technologies, etc... These actions grow economies and feed people. It isn't putting $70 Trillion into a hole somewhere?
This constant pursuit of less pollution and greater energy efficiency has provided millions and millions of jobs.
What "opportunity" is being lost?
To me it is a much better use of our money than employing all the tax accounting personnel, health insurance personnel, lawyers, etc.
At least we are getting knowledge, cleaner air and cleaner water from the effort.
And it will extend how long those power sources will be available.
There is nothing about curbing CO2 which results in "cleaner air." All you do is stifle the growth of plants. And you have 20 times the concentration of CO2 in your lungs as is in the air. ANY money spent on reducing CO2 is a waste. Now, if you want to propose alternative energy that is cheaper, reliable and readily deliverable, go out and make your fortune with it because we all will buy it-- no government mandate or subsidy needed.
I like garbage-burning MHD, myself, or lithium fusion. But I haven't invested yet.
Related Links
Climate Technology Gov
EPA Climate Change Tech
UN Climate Change Mitigation
" I consider the possibility that they are correct essentially zero," Jerry
It seems a lot of smart people and scientists believe in this hypothesis, what facts and data do you base your opinion on?
Which experts are you believing who you think know better?
What or who influences their views?
What do you think is motivating the "true believers" of CAGW to pursue this wild goose chase?
This almost concise enough for me...
IPCC Summary for Policy Makers
"Which experts are you believing who you think know better?"
I believe Al Gore. He is the one who says that the 600,000 years of ice core data show that CO2 and temperature "go up and down together." In other words, they are highly correlated. He has the actual data, he should not be doubted. He hasn't "doctored" this data as other climate scientists have been caught doing. But he doesn't read the chart correctly. What the chart shows is that CO2 goes up approximately 400 years AFTER temperature! So, CO2 doesn't cause global warming, global warming causes CO2! The whole theory is bogus.
The computer models that are used to predict CAGW are badly flawed, as has already been proven, and recently is starting to be admitted. They share the common flaw of all computer modelling which is that the variables and their relationships are poorly understood, the "boundary conditions" are largely unknown, and the whole shaky edifice depends on the assumptions thrown into it. We know the models start with an assumption that CO2 will double, and that CO2 has a progressively higher impact as concentration increases. So, assuming that CO2 will increase and cause "run away" warming, the models predict CAGW. What a surprise.
And you don't need computer models; a fifth grader can do the experiment. Take a cold soda pop out of the fridge, open it and let it set out. What happens? The "fizz," the CO2, comes out of it, because cold water holds more CO2 than warm water does. So, if /something/ heats up the ocean, will CO2 increase in the atmosphere? Doesn't it take a long time to heat up the ocean, maybe about 400 years? Or maybe the amount of time since the Little Ice Age in 1600?
No "experts" I can research?
Money, power, prestige, pride, self-aggrandizement, some combination. Or perhaps the simple matter of looking for data that agrees with your pre-conceived notion about something. For example, a large portion of the complete report (believe it or not, released AFTER the summary) consists of studies predicting some catastrophe or the other-- birds or animals or plants dying-- ASSUMING that the computer models are correct. The overall theory leaps from the assumption that the models are correct and predict warming, to the conclusion that human activity is the principal cause of it. The report does not seem to offer evidence of this essential causal link, and probably cannot.
"No "experts" I can research?"
Why don't you accept Al Gore and the IPCC? All you have to do is read and reason, and be your own "expert." If you need names, here:
Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
Judith Curry
Freeman Dyson
Richard Lindzen
Nils-Axel Mörner
Garth Paltridge
Peter Stilbs
Philip Stott
Hendrik Tennekes
Fritz Vahrenholt
Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
Khabibullo Abdusamatov,
Sallie Baliunas
Robert M. Carter
Ian Clark,University of Ottawa
Chris de Freitas
David Douglass
Don Easterbrook
William M. Gray, Colorado State University[37]
William Happer
Ole Humlum
Wibjörn Karlén
William Kininmonth
David Legates
Tad Murty
Tim Patterson
Ian Plimer
Arthur B. Robinson
Nicola Scafetta
Tom Segalstad
Fred Singer
Willie Soon
Roy Spencer
Henrik Svensmark
Jan Veizer
Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Claude Allègre
Robert Balling
John Christy, contributor to several IPCC reports.
Petr Chylek
David Deming
Ivar Giaever
Vincent R. Gray, New Zealander
Antonino Zichichi
Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
Craig D. Idso
Sherwood Idso
Patrick Michaels
High profile anti global warming scientist Bjorn Lomborg projects the economic effects of prevention or adaptation.
Saying you support Gore, except that you think he has the causation backward isn't showing much support.
Thanks for the list, I'll try to do some research if I get time.
WSK McNider and Christy Op Ed
McNider and Christy Rebuttal
Christy Presentation
Wow. I guess it all does depend on worldview, after all. The Warmists seem to be able to deny facts and data at will, and believe that merely asserting that "the globe is warming" is sufficient evidence, tautological as it may be.
The other thing I want you to notice, common to every other Warmist proclamation, is that these folks insist that the Earth is getting warmer, and then immediately leap to the conclusion that the cause is Anthropogenic. While they may have some evidence for the initial assertion (most of it unreliable, see "Climate-gate") they seem to offer no evidence of the logical leap to the human causation they require to make this a "crisis" requiring government action. And the insistence on accuracy of the models is laughable. I've programmed enough "fudge factors" into computer models to know how that works.
Just because I accept Al Gore's data doesn't mean I have to accept his conclusions. In fact, if I accept his data I must reject his conclusions. Hasn't "the movement" noticed that the entire CAGW is not only wrong, but backwards? Who are the "deniers" here?
It seems to me that when the data of the most fervent supporters-- Al Gore and the IPCC-- end up proving the case for the skeptics, they ought to be losing the argument.
You all may appreciate the timeliness of this piece given what we are reviewing...
MinnPost Climate Chg and Winter Olympics
"...if current climate patterns hold and the carbon pollution that causes climate isn’t limited."
What is this IF about? What if climate change does NOT occur, do we have to worry about this then? And what makes anybody think that curbing manmade CO2 is going to make a dime's worth of difference? The IPCC doesn't.
See, that's the trouble with these folks. They just make pronouncements as if they possessed the Revealed Truth about the global weather 100 years from now. Heck, they could make a fortune if they could just predict the weather for next week. But they cannot.
Links from Steve at MP
CO2 nears 400
Climate NASA 2050
Who is leading this movement? Mostly politicians and celebrities, plus a few star struck scientists. If anything, the truly qualified scientists are on our side, most saying the data is far from conclusive either way, certainly no cause for panic.
Hi R-Five, Welcome back. So what's with this 97% claim?
NASA Consensus
NASA Consensus Try 2
NewsBuster 97%
Just because I accept Al Gore's data doesn't mean I have to accept his conclusions
Why would you accept either his data or his conclusions?
--Hiram
I accept Al Gore's data because he didn't create it. The data has been published, and numerous similar studies all produce essentially the same result. I count it as factual information. Since skeptics began pointing to this major flaw in the "theory," the Warmists have tried to debunk it, but have only succeeded in explaining about half of the apparent 800-year lag, and bringing it CLOSER to real observation. And further from Al Gore's self-serving conclusions. Five minutes into his movie I saw that chart and knew he was full of hot air, and the rest of the movie he sounded like an evangelical preacher, making unscientific claims of doom coming. He convinced me, but in the opposite direction.
Let's try a little back-of-the-envelope math, shall we? We're worried that atmospheric CO2 is "approaching" 400 parts per million. That's a fraction of .0004. 96% of that is from natural sources, so anthropogenic CO2 is 0.000016. The US contributes 20% of that, or 0.0000032. To make it easy, let's write that as 32/10,000,000, or 32/100,000 of 1%, or 3.2 parts per million. That's kind of a small number.
Now let us consider what has been proposed. A horrific, probably impossible 50% cut (where we give up half of our transportation, heat, light, industry and concrete manufacture) would probably kill our economy, and probably quite a few people, and result in a CO2 reduction in the atmosphere of 16/100,000 of 1% or 1.6 parts per million. Either the Kyoto treaty or a US-only "cap and trade" scheme would result in ZERO change to the atmosphere.
Now would someone like to explain how a zero or even near-zero change to the atmosphere will result in "catastrophic climate change"?
Sorry, the challenge should read "can you explain how a zero or near-zero change to the atmosphere can PREVENT 'catastrophic climate change'?"
I accept Al Gore's data because he didn't create it.
So you aren't accepting Gore's data, you are accepting someone else's data.
--Hiram
That is correct. It is also correct that I am accepting the data upon which Mr. Gore's entirely erroneous conclusion rests.
It is also correct that I am accepting the data upon which Mr. Gore's entirely erroneous conclusion rests.
Unsurprising. Mr. Gore isn't an expert on the subject.
==Hiram
Hiram,
Now you are just being difficult.
What do you think abouth CAGW?
Is it false, true or "possible"?
What policy actions would you recommend?
Now you are just being difficult.
How so? People want to make this about Al Gore. Al Gore is no expert, he is just a celebrity spokesperson.
Global warming isn't my issue. And I certainly don't think I have the expertise to evaluate the issue. But I can certainly recognize flawed thinking in a negative way. I truly don't think that it has been incredibly hot in Australia this summer is proof that the globe is getting warmer. It would be silly to think so.
--Hiram
For me, people who think they have addressed global warming issues by attacking Al Gore have made a prima facie case for a lack of their own credibility. Whether something is true or false is not related to whether or not Al Gore believes it. Attacking the credibility of someone is what one does, when making a substantive case is too difficult.
--Hiram
Seriously? Since Al Gore made himself the celebrity spokesperson only because he believed so fervently (or, as some suspect, for fame and fortune), and tried to prove his case with scientific data that he clearly did not understand, and because his book and movie did much to popularize and propagandize on the issue, and because he actually shared a Nobel Prize with the IPCC and their pseudo-scientific claims, he is the perfect "celebrity spokesman" for the skeptics to tear down with the exact same data he used, thus dismantling his and the entire Warmist argument.
And it is absolutely simple to understand; you would have to be willfully blind to the truth to ignore it.
Al might be a perfect celebrity spokesman, but he isn't a scientist. His Nobel Prize wasn't in one of the sciences. He just isn't an authority on the subject, and those who pretend he is are just looking to establish him as a straw man.
I am even handed on this. I don't think the celebrity spokespeople on the other side are authorities. If I started attacking someone like Chris Monckton, maybe I would be clearly making a fallacious ad hominem attack.
--Hiram
Just because someone makes a movie on something, doesn't make him an expert on the subject matter. Frances Ford Coppola wasn't an expert on the mob just because he made "The Godfather". And really, does anyone think that?
--Hiram
Scientists generally speak for themselves, based on their data. It is political causes that tend to have spokespersons, and they either are or become celebrities linked to that cause. We judge scientists based on their work, but we shouldn't judge the work based on the scientist OR of the "celebrity" in front of it. In that you are correct.
However, when a political cause chooses or accepts a celebrity spokesperson, they risk having their entire credibility undermined, particularly if there is no scientific credibility to their endeavor in the first place. That is the judgment I am making here. It isn't that Al Gore is an expert, rather that he is exposing the fundamental error of the cause for which he speaks. If any other person had said the same thing, it would still prove that Global Warming is a massive scientific hoax. I'm pretty sure that the next IPCC report will tell us that Piltdown Man is responsible for starting the warming trend.
CNN Tech Firms to Help
"However, when a political cause chooses or accepts a celebrity spokesperson, they risk having their entire credibility undermined, particularly if there is no scientific credibility to their endeavor in the first place."
Possibly, but lets also note that credibility has nothing to do with truthfulness. I don't find a guy like Chris Monckton at all credible, but that doesn't mean he isn't telling me the truth.
--Hiram
Perhaps it's just my absolutist thinking saying this, but to me it is impossible for a spokesperson to be credible if their statements are incredible--i.e. not truthful. Of course, if you don't seek out the truth, you have to use something else, or leave everything in the "gray" of not knowing. I can't do that.
Perhaps it's just my absolutist thinking saying this, but to me it is impossible for a spokesperson to be credible if their statements are incredible--i.e. not truthful.
Credibility is entirely different from truthfulness. Lots of credible things are false. Lots of incredible things are true. Lawyers, to name one group, focus far more on credibility than they do on truthfulness, because credibility is much easier to prove. And of course credibility attacks on a witness are very advantageous when the witness is stating a truth, that undermines one's case.
--Hiram
Credibility and truthfulness are indeed different, as you point out. That's apropos to this discussion only in that if you want to believe a liar--i.e consider them credible-- feel free. I prefer to assign credibility to people whom I have, by other means, verified as truthful. Al Gore (and all Warmists for whom he speaks) has zero credibility with me because his own "evidence" contradicts his statements, and in fact disproves the entire CAGW "theory."
"you want to believe a liar--i.e consider them credible-- feel free. I prefer to assign credibility to people whom I have, by other means, verified as truthful."
The problem is that credibility is something you can assign, while truthfulness is something you cannot assign. And what matters is truthfulness, not credibility.
--Hiram
You are almost correct and agree with me that credibility is a property of the speaker, and truth is a property of that which is spoken. Therefore a credible speaker may lie, and one we find not credible may still speak the truth. It is a mistake to blindly accept any statement by an "expert" unless it seems consistent with what you already know about the subject or falls within a range of healthy skepticism of that knowledge. Do I need an example? NASA tells me the moon's orbit is getting closer to Earth, rather than fixed. Nancy Pelosi says a crash is imminent and we need more taxes to stop it. I've always thought the orbit was fixed, but it's possible NASA has reliable data otherwise-- the truth (unlike their data on climate change, BTW). Ms. Pelosi is not credible on this subject, and her statements are ALSO impossible to believe.
Where your statement breaks down is that it is possible that the truth is unknown to the speaker, whether you assign them credibility or not. They don't have to be lying for their statement to be false, which is the case with Al Gore. He really BELIEVES that correlation means causation, even though the causation is clearly backwards from what he says it is. He's not a liar, he's just totally wrong. He's not credible because he's not an expert. But he's also not credible because the truth is clearly otherwise. The others making the same pronouncements may be experts and ought to be credible, but they're not credible because the truth is clearly otherwise.
What's really crazy about this whole argument is how the word "skeptic" has been turned upside down. It used to be that the "scientist" proposing a radical change to theory or, in this case, to theory AND the world economy, was required to offer irrefutable proof over many years before the theory (and action) was accepted. Now those who believe what we have always believed about Earth's climate are suddenly the "skeptics" or "deniers" and those proposing a radically different, totally unproven and horrendously costly "theory" counted as holding the "consensus" view! It's as backwards from normal scientific pursuits as the theory itself!
You are almost correct and agree with me that credibility is a property of the speaker, and truth is a property of that which is spoken.
Actually, credibility isn't a property of the speaker, it's the property of the listener. It's the listener who chooses who to believe, and who not to believe, who to find credible, and who to not find credible. For myself, I confess to a prejudice. When I hear someone make obviously fallacious arguments, that raises the level of my skepticism about the points the guy is making on the assumption that he is making bad arguments because after a substantial amount of effort, he hasn't been able to find good arguments. But that is a prejudice. Bad arguments can be made for true things. And good arguments can be made for bad things.
And by the way, I deny here any equivalence between credibility and truth, moral or otherwise. Truth matters a great deal, credibility matters hardly at all.
--Hiram
'Where your statement breaks down is that it is possible that the truth is unknown to the speaker, whether you assign them credibility or not."
That doesn't make truth any less the truth. And the fact is, in the global warming debate, nobody has any complete and comprehensive claim on the truth. We just don't know enough. We have incomplete data, and are faced with decision of whether we want to act on such data, or wait until we have more data, at which point, it may very well be too late to act on the data we then have.
--Hiram
What you say makes sense, except we already know that we have ZERO scientific evidence for the proposition of CAGW, and therefore the proposal to spend trillions of dollars we do not have to avoid it is not only premature but extremely foolish. We also know that adaptation, IF and WHEN and regardless of cause, will be vastly cheaper than trying to prevent something that may not happen at all. I just found out this week that the UN, while pushing prevention, has been quietly funding an "adaptation fund." It seems not even they believe their own recommendations.
What you say makes sense, except we already know that we have ZERO scientific evidence for the proposition of CAGW, and therefore the proposal to spend trillions of dollars we do not have to avoid it is not only premature but extremely foolish.
There is hardly any proposition in science for which there is zero scientific evidence. There is some solid evidence that the sun revolves around the earth. It certainly feels that way. It's just that there is other evidence to the contrary.
Let's also keep in mind that just because there is no evidence for something doesn't mean, it isn't true. I have been watching the Neil DeGrasse Tyson remake of the Cosmos series, both episodes of which are still available on HuluPlus. Tyson told the story of Giordano Bruno who believed in the vast universe theory and got burned at the stake for his trouble. Subsequent research proved that he was right, but that wasn't evidence he had when he made his claims.
--Hiram
If all we cared about was the truth, it wouldn't much matter whether CAGW was a matter of faith or of science, or if CAGW was true or not. It doesn't really matter, UNLESS somebody says that we must radically alter our global economic system to "prevent" it. At that point it matters a great deal.
I say there is ZERO scientific proof simply because, I believe, no one has even attempted to scientifically prove the entire causal chain required to support this complex hypothesis, and because we cannot properly test the hypothesis until the year 2100. First of all, trying to measure "average" global surface temperature is difficult if not impossible, and we haven't had the more reliable satellite data for more than about 20 years, well within the known natural climate cycles. Then somebody has to prove that CO2 is the principal driver of global temperature, that manmade CO2 is the major component of that CO2, that this CO2 will continue to increase and that temperature response is increasingly (rather than decreasingly or linearly) sensitive to CO2 levels, and finally that this temperature rise will be "catastrophic." Of these, only the last has been researched well, simply ASSUMING all the rest, while skeptical research has pretty much DISproven all of the other requirements. So, if there were such a thing as the "sum" of research, it would probably be LESS than zero for the CAGW proposition.
This pretty well explains it, in general terms.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/03/why-the-alarmists-climate-models-are-worthless.php
I say there is ZERO scientific proof simply because, I believe, no one has even attempted to scientifically prove the entire causal chain required to support this complex hypothesis, and because we cannot properly test the hypothesis until the year 2100.
Sweeping statements are never true. Including that one. But causation can be difficult to prove, and it's very often the case that we can't wait for the proof. We don't really know how cigarette causes cancer, but the scientific evidence is convincing enough. We make policy decisions on less than complete information all the time. Insisting on having all the relevant facts before making a decision is a disguised argument for never doing anything at all.
==Hiram
True, but making the decision when you have ample data telling you it's the wrong one is folly. It is also proper decision-making to do a "risk analysis," where you take the probability of a bad outcome and multiply by the cost of avoiding the bad outcome, and weigh that against the probability of a good outcome times the cost of creating that good outcome. In this case, that is the cost of "doing nothing."
Since none of the computer models predicting CAGW have properly predicted the climate since 1998, the probability of the bad outcome is rapidly approaching zero, while the cost of avoiding it continues to grow. The cost of doing nothing seems about right. The only reason we continue to have this discussion is because of the billions of dollars government spends trying to flog this dead horse back into the race for relevance.
True, but making the decision when you have ample data telling you it's the wrong one is folly
I have nothing approaching ample data. And a lot of other people don't seem to have ample data either. I have literally heard folks on TV argue that because we have had cold weather recently, global warming is a myth. They didn't see to require ample data, or really hardly any data at all to make a definitive judgment on an immensely complicated subject.
Why I do see is a lot of data mining by folks with pre existing world views, something I never take seriously unless I am doing it myself.
--Hiram
I assume that you do not have ample data because, like most folks, you don't care enough about the issue to put in the effort, and aren't willing to listen to people that have put in the effort. You assume all information comes from a worldview that biases the data. I think one can usually see past the bias to the underlying facts, or just filter the information through one's own worldview (i.e. experience and judgment about reality) to find the truth. And if you can find information from BOTH sides to corroborate those facts, they should be more than ample to come to a conclusion. If you really want to know. Most folks just look out the back window, see 18" of snow on the ground on the 1st day of Spring, and decide that the alarmists are just that-- full of hot air and refusing to share.
Since this issue is a matter of "science," (allegedly), I took an interest, and one of the first things I had to do was hear Al Gore on the subject. Within the first five minutes, he gave me absolute proof that he was wrong. That has been confirmed many times over, and vast amounts of evidence have been produced, AGAIN on both sides, to sustain that conclusion. In simpler times, these hoaxers would have been tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail. Now the US government spends $20 billion a year propping up their hoax. At what point does the expenditure of taxpayer cash and the restriction of freedom and opportunity generate enough interest to expose the grand deception?
Oh, by the way, those people on TV talking about "the cold weather lately" are the scientists, some from the IPCC "consensus," using the official data. They have successfully disproven their own case and their new-found opponents are from the same camp, insisting on far more dubious arguments to explain away the reality.
"I assume that you do not have ample data because, like most folks, you don't care enough about the issue to put in the effort, and aren't willing to listen to people that have put in the effort."
I don't have ample data because I made a different career choice. I chose not to become an environmental scientist. There are many other occupations I chose not to pursue also.
"You assume all information comes from a worldview that biases the data."
No, and I don't think data has a bias. I think people with world views select the data that agrees with their world view, which is why I don't take the Al Gores, or the Chris Monckton's of the world seriously on this issue.
--Hiram
So, if you won't accept data from a biased source, where, pray tell, do you get the data on which you make a decision? Or are you, as previously indicated, perfectly happy living in the gray between the "yes" and "no"?
"So, if you won't accept data from a biased source, where, pray tell, do you get the data on which you make a decision?"
I will accept data from any source. I just don't accept the choice of data, and I don't assume that any source of data is complete.
Isn't it interesting that it's the critics of global warming who argue that Al Gore should be treated seriously, must be regarded as an authority on the issue, something which seems completely absurd to the rest of us. The reason for that, tor borrow a favorite conservative argument, they need him as a straw man. They feel if they defeat him, they defeat his arguments.
This reminds of the Bertolt Brecht play, "Galileo". At the end of the play, Galileo is a broken man. He has recanted his views, and is being held under house arrest by his daughter. By defeating the man, the Inquisition believes they have defeated his views. But as I remember it, in the last lines of the play, Galileo asks his daughter, "how is the night?" "Clear", she says with a note of fear in her voice. The point, I thought, was that while you can defeat the man, you cannot defeat the truth. No matter what the fate of individuals on Earth, at least when there are no clouds outside, the night sky remains clear.
--Hiram
The other funny things is that people who argue from authority, need authority, if only for the purpose of discrediting it. If you want to mount a credibility argument, you need someone whose credibility can be challenged. One fact about facts is that they are neither credible, nor incredible, they are just facts.
--Hiram
"I will accept data from any source. ... Isn't it interesting that it's the critics of global warming who argue that Al Gore should be treated seriously, must be regarded as an authority on the issue, something which seems completely absurd to the rest of us."
You miss the point entirely. I am accepting only the data that Mr. Gore presents, which PROVES that he is not to be taken seriously or as an authority. And then I am enjoying the irony of having the "poster boy" for CAGW being the one disproving it.
"I am accepting only the data that Mr. Gore presents, which PROVES that he is not to be taken seriously or as an authority. And then I am enjoying the irony of having the "poster boy" for CAGW being the one disproving it."
You need to accept all data, not just the data Al Gore chooses for you.
--Hiram
"You need to accept all data, not just the data Al Gore chooses for you."
No, I don't. I accept only the data that can be corroborated from multiple sources, or from common sense, knowledge and experience. If someone with a known bias provides data which harms their own case, however, I take that as an "admission against interest" and assign it a higher likelihood of being truthful, just like in a court of law. In this case, Mr. Gore's ice-core data meets all three legs of the test for data reliability. I do NOT accept the data coming from climate models, however, because those fuzzy predictions are far off from the actual temperature data.
Saying I must accept all data is telling me I can never make a decision because all data are equally valid, even though they may be contradictory. If I'm not allowed to make a judgment about the value or truthfulness individual data inputs, I don't have the judgment to reach a conclusion from the data.
You need to accept all data, not just the data Al Gore chooses for you."
No, I don't.
And that, in a nutshell, is the difference.
==Hiram
I accept only the data that can be corroborated from multiple sources, or from common sense, knowledge and experience.
Lots of thing are true, that aren't corroborated, aren't multiply sourced, or sourced at all, and certainly the world is full of things that are true despite the fact that they violate common sense, aren't known or commonly known or are not the subject of experience.
Truth is not dependent on, not even related to, the subjectivity of the observer. Never. Ever.
--Hiram
"Truth is not dependent on, not even related to, the subjectivity of the observer. Never. Ever."
I think you are incorrect here.
Truth is related to beliefs and can therefore vary.
Facts are the same for everyone.
Therefore "Truth" can vary based on one's faith.
Facts however need to be able to be proven, corraborated, etc.
Often we confuse the 2 around here.
Truth is related to beliefs and can therefore vary.
Just because you believe something doesn't make it true. Belief is linked to credibility, not truth.
--Hiram
It is True that a Human Life begins at Conception...
It is True that Rich non-benevolant Conservatives will go to Hell...
Please prove the truths incorrect.
Philosophy F vs T
Difference Between F and T
You said that credibility was a property of the observer, not the speaker, and not the data. We're chasing around semantics when a serious problem needs addressing.
We're getting wrapped around the axle trying to discern the Ultimate Truth of All Things, and it ain't gonna happen. All I propose is that we each form an opinion on what is true about a specific matter of public policy (or scientific inquiry) using the information available to us. In this case, I contend that the "theory" of CAGW is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, and that public policy must never be set based on this "theory."
Just curious...
How many people need to believe something is the TRUTH within a society before it is a core TRUTH/VALUE within a society?
Examples:
Democracy is the best way to govern a country.
Women and Men should be treated equally.
If there is a consensus, a widespread belief, in a society that women should be placed in an inferior position, as there is in some societies today, and at many points in human history, does that make it true?
In Aztec society, people believed that human sacrifice was necessary for well being. Because they believed that, was human sacrifice the right thing to do.
You can do the tautological thing. If people believe something, it is true that they believe it. But tautologies take us only so far. It's never the case that believing something makes it true. It can do other things however. It can, for example, make things more effective. I would feel comfortable in arguing that a society that believes in democracy is more likely to have a democracy that works well, than one that does not. But that is a different thing from saying that democracy is true.
--Hiram
Now we are making progress. I've long said that in weighing the "facts" (to the degree it is know-able, the Truth) that human emotions, feelings, prejudices and opinions must be considered "facts," albeit potentially changeable. And that is the battleground on this subject. The CAGW side is still showing pictures of lonely polar bears to children, using emotion to bypass the entire scientific/factual argument. Meanwhile, the skeptics tell people to look out the window at the snow, and a majority are now persuaded that, at least, CAGW is not a big concern.
Our only problem here is that our government continues to spend billions of dollars every year propagandizing for and trying to "stop" this mythological horror. How one longs for the days when the US Senate rejected the Kyoto treaty 95-0. And how CAGW seemingly stopped at that point.
"I've long said that in weighing the "facts" (to the degree it is know-able, the Truth) that human emotions, feelings, prejudices and opinions must be considered "facts," albeit potentially changeable.}
That one might have an an opinion is certainly a fact, but the mere having of an opinion doesn't make the opinion either true or false.
"Meanwhile, the skeptics tell people to look out the window at the snow, and a majority are now persuaded that, at least, CAGW is not a big concern."
Again, I am no expert on global science. It's an immensely complicated field of knowledge which I haven't begun to study. But I am pretty confident in saying that the undisputed fact that summer in Australia this year doesn't even begin the process of proving or disproving global warming. I find it startling that there are those who believe that a cold winter, is compelling evidence against global warming, or in support of global cooling, I guess.
I have been watching the Neil DeGrass Tyson Cosmos series with great interest. you can catch up with past episodes on HuluPlus. I feel pretty certain there was a time in human history when people were told that the sun revolved around the Earth and if you don't believe me just look out the window.
--Hiram
"If there is a consensus, a widespread belief, in a society that women should be placed in an inferior position, as there is in some societies today, and at many points in human history, does that make it true?"
Yes. For that society and time it does make it the truth.
However, it would not be factual that women were inferior to men without some form of repeatable measures.
"this mythological horror"
Now that is your personal truth.
How would you prove scientifically and repeatedly that CAGW is not a fact? Your "opposite Gore" argument did nothing for me.
How many years and what kind of data is required?
As far as I know at this time, there are 2 unproven theories being studied.
Human caused CAGW exists.
Human caused CAGW does not exist.
And of course no one has the factual answer because we have never been here before. (ie burning so many fossil fuels...) And there are so many factors at play that anyone who says they can predict the future is likely smoking pot...
We are back at it again...
MinnPost No Pause
Yes. For that society and time it does make it the truth.
An answer that sounds in relativism, but no that would not be true. It would just be what people believed to be true. Just as there was never a society for which the sun revolved around the Earth just because there was a consensus in that society that happened to believe that.
"it would not be factual that women were inferior to men without some form of repeatable measures."
Whether we measure things or not doesn't make things factual or not. A cold day is a cold day whether or not we own a thermometer.
--Hiram
And of course no one has the factual answer because we have never been here before.
Can this be true. It seems to me lots of people have lots of factual answers, it's just many people find many of those answers unpersuasive, often because they conflict with their world view.
So the next time a teenager asks us, should I take up smoking? Should our answer be yes because no one can prove how smoking causes cancer?
--Hiram
"How would you prove scientifically and repeatedly that CAGW is not a fact? Your "opposite Gore" argument did nothing for me."
Then you aren't paying attention. Al Gore's ice core data has been repeatedly analyzed-- cores from different places and by many different scientists, and every single one of them shows exactly the opposite of what Al Gore says about the data. He insists that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is causal in nature, when the actual data shows clearly that increased temperature PRECEDES (and thus causes) CO2 increases! QED.
Do the experiment yourself; any fifth-grader can. Take a can of soda pop out of the fridge, open it, and let it set on the counter. What happens? That's right, it loses its "fizz." The CO2 dissolved in the soda comes out of it, because warm water holds less CO2 than cold water does. SO.... if "something" heats up the 3/4 of this earth covered by water, what happens to CO2? And because there is so much water, would it surprise anybody that this takes a while, say about 400 years? Like the amount of time between now and the little ice age 400 years ago?
Two more things:
Notice the long list of things supposedly "caused" by global warming, http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html True or not, reasonable or not, notice how quickly the "scientists" LEAP to the conclusion that each of these effects-- either predicted or observed-- not only proves that the Earth is (or will be) getting warmer, but that human CO2 causes it! There is no proof ever offered for this leap of causality, which Al Gore's data has already disproven (see previous)!
The second thing that ought to bother you is the way the word "skeptic" has been redefined, to be backwards from the original. Normally, someone proposing a radical new scientific theory, such as that human CO2 will destroy the planet, would have the burden of elaborate and reliable proof for that radical proposition, before it would be accepted. Those proposing, in addition, that we make a massive and humanity-denying shift to the global economy because of this entirely unproven proposition would normally be laughed off the world stage, if not executed for apostasy. Yet the threats we hear are against those defending what is the existing accepted scientific truth, from those insisting the truth is otherwise. How odd. How inappropriate. How wrong.
"We are back at it again..."
Correct. Once again we see that the people who want to believe their own BS will fudge the data to prove what they want it to prove. Those with access to the unaltered data have a better chance of knowing the truth. Ask yourself why these folks are saying there is NOT a pause? There must be data somewhere that says there is, and some people obviously are believing that, rather than the hand-waving arguments advanced in this article. And once again, notice that while these folks insist that the world is getting warmer-- true or not it doesn't matter at this point-- they simply ASSUME the cause is human CO2! They offer no proof whatsoever for this being the case, yet they want to blame all of humanity for not preventing these natural disasters. Ever notice how people losing an argument on facts and logic become ever more insistent about it?
What Really Happened
"cores from different places and by many different scientists, and every single one of them shows exactly the opposite of what Al Gore says about the data."
Source the EVERY...
Try this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/paleoclimatology-data/datasets/ice-core
NOAA Ice Core
I see data, lots of data... However I don't see anything or anyone saying that Gore is wrong regarding causality. And no I am not start reviewing ice data...
NY Post Gore is Wrong
Truth Out Artic Ice
This seems to be an even-handed treatment.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/01/15/co2-lags-temperature-in-the-ice-core-record-doesnt-that-prove-the-ipcc-wrong/
I have found others which also say that CO2 goes up AFTER temperature, certainly, but that it then contributes to further warming until temps start back down (note: NATURALLY). It then lags THAT change. If you had the chart that Al Gore used, it would be perfectly plain to see; he just doesn't see it.
Post a Comment