So Jerry and I got in an interesting discussion over on the Harvey Post.
"Yes, I have noticed idiots and stupidity abounding for decades. I learned long ago that part of the difficulty was with "information processing" styles, with "Sensors" and "Perceivers" particularly ill-suited to working with "Intuitive Thinkers" and vice versa. But it is only recently that I discovered differences in matters of information RECEIVING, as mentioned.
As a result, I am attempting to change old habits of communicating, along the lines you suggest. Sometimes people are convinced better by empathy than by sledgehammer logic. All that said, I refuse to give up what I know and believe just because somebody else refuses to acknowledge the truth. Desiderata " Jerry"So how do you KNOW that YOU are not the idiot? Or the one suffering from poor information intake?" G2A"Because I know what I know. If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't be trying to convince you I'm right. I wouldn't even know how to begin to do that; it is tough enough trying to convince you that YOU are ill-informed or misinformed, or Fallen prey to some other "information processing error.."And I have admitted previously that, depending upon one's selection of facts in a complex issue, one can arrive easily at a false conclusion, especially when the previously-mentioned biases are at work. So I remain open to proof that I have indeed missed the truth of the matter. The problem is that, in this case, I have yet to see any to the contrary which is as strong (for example, specific) as what I already have in the affirmative.Go ahead. Convince me. I repeat: can you offer any proof that these climate models can predict a "global" temperature 100 years from now with any degree of accuracy? if I am indeed misinformed, try informing me before accusing me of "poor information intake." Jerry
So the circular logic of the argument fascinates me...
- How does one know that they are not the stupid idiot?
- Because they know what they know...
So let's test this and I will use Peter and Paul for an example.
- So Paul knows for sure that climate change is being strongly impacted by human activities.
- Therefore Paul is not a stupid idiot.
- So Peter knows for certain that human activities are having no significant negative impact on the Earth.
- Therefore Peter is not a stupid idiot.
- So how do you KNOW that YOU are not the idiot?
- Or the one suffering from poor information intake?
PT Why We Think We are So Special
ReplyDeleteKT Think They are Better
Quote1
Quote 2
Quote 3
Quote 1
ReplyDeleteAnd I love this one...
CBS Everyone Thinks They are Above Average
ReplyDeleteI have always thought intelligence is characterized by an awareness of one's limits, in particular, of what we don't know. And the fact is, we don't know a lot.
ReplyDeleteThe environment isn't my issue, and I would say my knowledge of the specifics of the issue is less than average. In political terms, and I do know a bit more about that, it's an issue that has been decided. The election of Donald Trump means that America has rejected conventional climate science.
Something I know more about, however, is how arguments work. While I am no fan of logic, for example, while I am never impressed by arguments simply because the are "logical", rhetoric is something I have worked with for a long time. What we are dealing here is with conceptions and misconceptions about how we know things. And where complex scientific phenomena are concerned, what we know is always uncertain and full of gaps and inconsistencies. For example, there aren't and won't be certainties in climate science. And insistence that there needs to be such certainties is in fact a certain rejection of climate science. That might not be wrong, but it is a pretty clear rejection of how we do science, and it flies in the face of the fact that science, despite how little of it is certain, has a track record of doing really, really well.
--Hiram
It seems to me quite simple to distinguish between the two. 1) HOW do they know what they know, and 2) Can you actually explain WHY what you know must be true. I can KNOW that God exists, because I have a religious faith in that. But there is no way I can prove it, scientifically, even to myself. As for the second point, I refer again to the Iron Law of knowledge, touched on by one of the quotes above.
ReplyDeleteHiram, you always raise some interesting diversions. Your first sentence is in fact quite correct. Your last is quite wrong. Einstein said something like "A thousand scientists can believe a theory, but one person with the truth proves them all wrong." The "Theory of CAGW" is, scientifically speaking, not a theory (i.e. best explanation for an observed phenomenon) and at best a totally unproven "hypothesis" (i.e. a guess about how something works). To become a theory, you run a test, and see if the results match the prediction made from the hypothesis. So, one hundred years from now we will know and that is the ONLY way we will know. Our political "solutions" should never be based on some wild guess. We need a level of certainty commensurate with the size of the wager being made on it.
ReplyDeletethe answer to your question seems very obvious to me.
ReplyDeleteI rely reputable sources and on the consensus of experts to form my opinions:
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."
Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming
Information from NASA just seems much more reliable to me than information from Jerry.
So, one hundred years from now we will know and that is the ONLY way we will know.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible I suppose, but climate issue are very complex, and it's very difficult to test any theory comprehensively. We will know how things turned out, but it's hard to imagine how we would definitively know how things would have turned out had we done something different.
I have no problem basing actions, political or otherwise, on guesses, even wild guesses. For one thing, given the fact that we don't have adequate or complete evidence, wild guesses are all we ever have. The choice to do nothing is a wild guess too.
--Hiram
People from the future will be different. I base this on the fact that we are different from the way people of the past thought we would be. I see this a lot in movies and TV shows. Mostly people in the past didn't foresee Steve Jobs. They didn't, with a few exceptions, foresee personal computers or the internet. Star Trek has ipads, but they aren't linked to the cloud and have the capacity to contain one book, or perhaps one action report on encounters with the Cardassians. Jean Luc Picard's laptop is incredibly clunky. The computer Spock uses appears to be a glorified abacus.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
I love the movie "Soylent Green" but the folks in that future aren't just limited in their menu choices, but are also have access to computer games not much further advanced than "Pong". It's a world, it seems, where Atari didn't go broke.
ReplyDelete---Hiram
Laurie, you exactly represent the Iron Theory of knowledge. You rely on "information from NASA" (and do not even say WHICH information-- the largely inaccurate and then
ReplyDelete"fudged" surface data, or the satellite data. The first shows a very slight warming and the second shows essentially NO warming, while the computer models which make predictions based on the hypothesis have already, to a 95% mathematical certainty, predicted too high. The "hypothesis" is pretty well busted, at this point. You can't just believe what people SAY about the data. You have to actually see the data, check its reliability, and draw your own logical conclusions on meaning.
And here is the issue: "Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming" So WHAT? Earth's climate changes all the time. One would expect that we would be getting warmer having come out of the Little Ice Age a couple hundred years ago, and it would be entirely NATURAL. And even if there were a "consensus among scientists" that humans were "causing" most of the warming, the FACTS would seem to indicate otherwise.
Hiram, the Scientific Method says you form a hypothesis, you make a prediction from it, you test the hypothesis and if the results match the prediction, exactly and repeatedly, the hypothesis may become a theory-- a working explanation. Since these are supposedly scientists we are listening to, we must assume that they are doing science properly. Therefore, we let them run their computer models and make predictions, and then we need wait 100 years and see if they were right. So far, it isn't looking too likely.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you are doubling down on your pseudo-exceptionalism argument.
"Pseudo-exceptionalism—the unearned conviction that we are exceptional, superior to others because we were born...us"
Apparently you KNOW you are correct because no one has convinced you that you are not...
And apparently you are incorrect about what is a Scientific Theory.
ReplyDeleteA scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and are a comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light).
And technically there are 2 unproven hypothesis at play here:
ReplyDeleteH1: Climate will not be adversely impacted by humans activity.
H2: Climate will be adversely impacted by human activity
The reality is that both the deniers and the believers are running somewhat blind. Humans and Earth have never been here before. The dinosaurs simply had no capability to mine, pump and burn many millions of tons of fossil fuels daily.
That is why I compare the situation to driving on a foggy dark night in moose country. Given the potential risks, caution is advised until the fog clears...
I personally have no idea how to tell if I am the wise person or the stupid idiot in some areas...
ReplyDeleteA certain amount of self confidence and faith in our knowledge / capability is critical to our ability to function every day. We can not second guess ourselves every moment or we would get nothing done.
I think the trick is to be willing to admit what we do not know for certain and to stay curious. And maybe to really question people who say they KNOW the answers to complex problems and theories...
We may not have proven the hypotheses but we certainly have accepted them. Rush Limbaugh has argued his case well and effectively. We just have to hope the trust we have placed in him was not misplaced. It's not a decision we can go back on.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
"Apparently you KNOW you are correct because no one has convinced you that you are not... " Yes, and it is not my job to convince myself I am wrong. It is YOUR job and so far you haven't done it very well, on this issue. Repeating the same thing over and over doesn't make it so.
ReplyDelete"A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can, in accordance with the scientific method, be repeatedly tested, using a predefined protocol of observations and experiments."
ReplyDeleteNot only correct, but it is what I have been insisting upon since this conversation began. Where is the "repeated testing" of the hypothesis that human fossil fuel burning will create a catastrophic climate 100 years from now?
The problem with the definition as stated is that until that hypothesis has BEEN repeatedly tested and the observations found to match the predictions made, it does not become a theory, scientifically speaking. In the case of CAGW, this not only has not happened, it is impossible for it to happen at all.
John, For an engineer and someone with a somewhat strong background in science you are surprisingly dismissive of the science and scientific consensus that humans dumping huge amts of carbon into the air has and is having significant impact.
ReplyDeleteWhat is not know is exactly how much and how fast the earth will continue to warm and other climate impacts such as droughts and flooding. Their complex models can only make predictions very imprecisely.
"I personally have no idea how to tell if I am the wise person or the stupid idiot in some areas... A certain amount of self confidence and faith in our knowledge / capability is critical to our ability to function..."
ReplyDeleteNow you confuse me. If you cannot tell whether you are wise or an idiot, you do not have enough information and you should have no confidence whatsoever in your knowledge. You should be wise enough to know you are, on this issue, an idiot. Unfortunately, this is where the Iron Law comes in. Because /somebody/ knows, we assume /we/ know because we can always ask them. We rarely ask how THEY know what they know, nor do we question, usually, upon what data they base their claim to know whatever it is. In many, many areas this is good enough. A very "smart" and good friend tells you to vote for so-and-so for District Court Judge and you had no clue, so you go with that rather than doing your own research and forming your own opinion. Somebody you barely know tells you to put your whole 401k into XYZ stock right away, you might think twice and do some serious knowledge expansion of your own.
That is the case here. We have very learned people on both sides. One side fudges the numbers, suppresses dissenters, and hides the real data. They are also most vocal in telling you what the data means without telling you how they got it or what it actually says. Would you be wise to listen to them without research of your own, including listening to the other side?
Laurie, I think that comment may have been directed at me. I am the one dismissing the notion about manmade CO2 having an impact, while John continues to insist it is significant. I can be convinced if someone will simply prove, scientifically and mathematically, that 1) fossil fuel burning is the principle driver of total atmospheric CO2, and 2) that total atmospheric CO2 is the principle driver of "global" temperature. It shouldn't be that difficult, should it?
ReplyDeleteLet me be more clear: If that "humongous" amount of CO2 being released by fossil fuel burning is actually a tiny fraction of total atmospheric CO2, then where is the argument for curbing CO2 in an attempt to control the temperature? And if it IS a large fraction, but CO2 doesn't significantly effect temperature, then again, where is the argument for assuming manmade CO2 is the "global thermostat" we can control?
"And technically there are 2 unproven hypothesis at play here:
ReplyDeleteH1: Climate will not be adversely impacted by humans activity.
H2: Climate will be adversely impacted by human activity"
No, actually there is only one. We have turned the debate on its head, here, and assumed that this radically new idea, that fossil fuels cause catastrophic warming, is the truth and we do not need to prove it. Rather we want to force those who say the world is operating exactly as it always has must prove the negative of that otherwise unbelievable new idea.
Laurie and Jerry,
ReplyDeleteThank you for volunteering to play who is the stupid idiot...
• So Laurie knows for sure that climate change is being strongly impacted by human activities.
•So Jerry knows for certain that human activities are having no significant negative impact on the Earth.
So who is the wise individual and who is the stupid idiot?
I think I disagree with this statement.
ReplyDelete"Yes, and it is not my job to convince myself I am wrong."
I think wise people continually work to challenge their perspective of reality.
When people fail to do so, they fail to grow wiser with age a stagnate.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteI want you to prove to us to our satisfaction that this huge step function in the burning of fossil fuels will not negatively impact our environment and climate of our home called Earth.
No, that is not the way it works. It is up to those proposing a radically new idea about how the world works to prove there is a) some basis for it, and b) that it is actually occurring to a degree that matters. Were this purely a matter of scientists tinkering, researching and getting their models right, nobody would care. But somehow the alarmists have seized on this as a way to "take over the world" long before we know enough to say one way or the other.
ReplyDeleteI have already researched both of the questions I asked and know the answers, but you will not accept such information from me. You are going to have to go find it yourself. Again: "...prove, scientifically and mathematically, that 1) fossil fuel burning is the principle driver of total atmospheric CO2, and 2) that total atmospheric CO2 is the principle driver of 'global' temperature. It shouldn't be that difficult, should it?"
It is up to those proposing a radically new idea about how the world works to prove there is a) some basis for it, and b) that it is actually occurring to a degree that matters
ReplyDeleteThe climate is not a court of law. Issues related to allocation of burden of proof do not apply. How we discuss climate issues doesn't keep us dry when it is raining. And in politics, just in life, a decision to do nothing is just as much a decision as a to do something.
As I have said, I am not that interested in the environment. Part of the reason for that is that we have made the relevant decisions, and now our job is to live with the consequences. All we can do know is hope the people who made this decision are right.
--Hiram
You are correct, and not correct. It is not my job to convince myself I am wrong, AFTER I have reached a conclusion justified by the time and effort to research and acquire the knowledge to make it. Until then I need be open to all the evidence, and afterwards open to compelling evidence to the contrary, such that my confirmation bias is overcome. Basically that depends on how much and how reliable is the knowledge I believe went went into my conclusion. [That is, I tend to distrust information and sources that do not "confirm" what I already believe to be true. So does everybody else.]
ReplyDeleteHiram, I think you are making the right point at the wrong time. As for Climate Change, the proposals to "do something" are a matter of making law, and we would like to think that lawmakers would at least have some reasonable basis for enacting new laws with a tremendous burden on economic freedoms and results.
ReplyDeleteAnd we have NOT made the relevant decisions yet. We still have people demanding we sign on to the economy-crippling and totally worthless Paris Agreement. Trump's decision was a good one, but that hasn't stopped the nattering nabobs of negativity from demanding a reversal.
Sorry for the interruption. Back to idiots talking past each other.
Jerry,
ReplyDeletePlease feel free to stagnate and grow no wiser. That is a choice only you can make.
Since humans and their unnatural power generation have never existed on this planet... Both paths are equally possible...
H1: Climate will not be adversely impacted by humans activity.
H2: Climate will be adversely impacted by human activity"
Your first attempt to defend H1 has been deemed a complete failure...
We elected Trump. That's pretty much it. Now it's true lots of people disagree with that decision. Indeed, the other guy got the votes. Now obviously there will be talk about these issues going forward. People are still arguing about the revolution. But the issue has been decided and it's our job to live with the consequences.
ReplyDeleteTrump is not just another president. His election was the defining moment of American history. Things will never be the same, things will never go back to any concept of normal. We now live in a new world, if not necessarily a brave world.
--Hiram
"Your first attempt to defend H1 has been deemed a complete failure..."
ReplyDeleteI do not need to defend H1. Absent ANY evidence-- you have not provided any for the CAGW portion of it-- for H2, H1 stands. It is what the world always believed, until these "climate scientists" started their massive hoax. How about this: Please PROVE that CAGW is NOT a hoax?
"both paths are equally possible." Except that both cannot simultaneously be true.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I need to correct your statement:
ReplyDeleteit should say:
• So Laurie and hundreds of climate scientists (97%) know for sure that climate change is being strongly impacted by human activities.
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteHow things have always been is not an acceptable argument for H1...
Since humans have never numbered 7 Billion on this planet and burned so much fossil fuel, past behavior does not necessarily indicate future results. Yes you do need to defend your hypothesis that this LARGE CHANGE will not result in adverse consequences.
Laurie,
You are choosing to believe the climate warming alarmists, instead of Jerry's deniers. Own it !!!
Jerry, do not play games here...
ReplyDeleteYou know that these are 2 totally different things.
""both paths are equally possible." Except that both cannot simultaneously be true."
These hypotheses are both forward looking. With time we will know which is correct, or if neither is.
The so called alarmists and deniers are no where equal in number or qualifications.
ReplyDeleteHave I mentioned that 97% of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming and humans are the main cause of this? Why do you continue to dismiss this very strong consensus and treat climate change denial as an equally valid position?
A. That 97% number is complicated.
ReplyDeleteB. I think it is happening, though the result is very foggy.
Laurie, you're being hoaxed. That "97%" consists of EXACTLY 43 scientists from a very, very limited study on the subject. Again, I point out that some 33,000 scientists of various stripes have signed a declaration saying the opposite. A more careful study suggests that 97% of scientists DISAGREE.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you keep making qualitative statements about the "LARGE CHANGE" in human CO2 emissions but you repeatedly refuse to tell us how "LARGE" it is in the scheme of things. Either admit you are perpetuating the greatest pseudoscientific hoax of all time, or "...prove, scientifically and mathematically, that 1) fossil fuel burning is the principle driver of total atmospheric CO2, and 2) that total atmospheric CO2 is the principle driver of 'global' temperature. It shouldn't be that difficult, should it?"
It is increasingly looking like it IS difficult. Are you going to insist that I prove that neither of these are true, just so you can dismiss them without ever offering proof of your own? Just saying "T'ain't so" is not much of an argument.
Ah! I see my mistake. I failed to notice that H1 and H2 are both stated as possible FUTURE events, so yes, both are possible though I would hardly say equally so. Do I need to remind you of all the alarmist predictions that have already come and gone with no evidence of any resemblance to reality?
ReplyDeleteLaurie, for you: the new consensus
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteThe other day I got to feeling bad about ignoring nearly all your comments. The reason I do this is that our polar opposite views, approach to forming opinions, and the very different sources we rely on for information make discussing the issues pointless 99% of the time.
I did click your link and found three links of my own that contradict it in only 2-3 minutes of research.
Did Global Warming Slow Down in the 2000s, or Not?
Global warming scientists learn lessons from the pause that never was
<a href='https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/24/top-scientists-insist-global-warming-really-did-slow-down-in-the-2000s/?utm_term=.f0af71c9433c">Top scientists insist global warming really did slow down in the 2000s</a>
Don't take the time to try to convince me how you are correct with detailed debating points, as I just accept the main ideas from articles from reliable sources quoting expert opinion.
I would be curious to see it if you find anything to support your views in a source that I consider reliable , nonbiased , reputable etc. (such as the sources I link)
Top scientists insist global warming really did slow down in the 2000s
ReplyDeleteJerry,
ReplyDeleteI am saying that it is likely that the human activities will impact the earth's atmosphere since almost all new actions have consequence. I am saying that the severity of the consequence is foggy so far, requires more study and that we should tread lightly until we know more..
You are claiming that it is has been absolutely proven that the massive change that the humans have brought with them has no negative consequences. I think the size of the step input is relatively unimportant since we do not know the consequence or sensitivity to the near step function input of humans into our atmosphere.
And you are failing miserably to prove your hypothesis that humans can do as they wish with NO negative severe consequences.
From the actual source of Jerry's link. Watts Up.
ReplyDelete"While the White House doesn’t exactly have a reputation for being evenhanded about climate change, we still need to point out that the Cook et al. results said nothing about it being “dangerous.”
What Cook et al. did claim to find—that a high percentage of scientists that think that humans play some role in “global warming”—seems to comport pretty well with our own experiences with climate scientists and the climate literature. We definitely would fall within Cook’s 97 percent."
PT Fake News about Global Cooling
Laurie, Good links to explain the supposed pause... (ie normal variation)
ReplyDeleteHer is one I like better from NOAA themselves.
ReplyDeleteNow back to the topic...
ReplyDeleteWe have 2 good educated people who have totally different and opposing beliefs regarding a piece of knowledge that is still being studied.
Is one of them the "stupid idiot"?
Or is just a matter of perspective?
Why do we as humans have so much vested in proving ourselves right and them wrong?
Thank you, Laurie. I think I can "find support" for my cockamamie ideas in the very reports you cite. I notice a consensus around two things. First, that the Earth is getting warmer over the last 100 years or so. Second, that for the last 20 years, the Earth has not warmed as rapidly as the climate models say it should. There you have it, conclusive proof. That the world is getting warmer says absolutely NOTHING about the cause of that, with natural cycles being a most likely explanation. That the warming is not occurring as rapidly as the models predict based on CO2 being the driving force, says that CO2 is NOT the driving force. QED.
ReplyDeleteI might also add that what is hinted at here is that our method of using scattered ground-based temperature stations and then "adjusting" the data is not only inaccurate, but suspect. Satellite data shows even less warming, and it is truly a global measurement. A little math tells me that it is 95% certain that the models are wrong, and therefore we should not be rushed into some costly action that might not matter.
"Why do we as humans have so much vested in proving ourselves right and them wrong?" -- John
ReplyDeletePerhaps it is because one side of this is spending $270 Billion per year (of OUR money) on their version of the truth, while telling the rest of us how stupid (and immoral) we are for not spending more.
Or it may just be our eternal search for the truth, which SHOULD be free to all, and our desire not to let fools harm themselves.
And the thing, John, that you seem to find most comforting, the notion that "humans play 'some role' in warming," does not give me any comfort at all. How BIG of a role is the all-important question. Now if you include things like deforestation and land use, actual particulate and sulfate pollution, it is almost certainly true but still not quantified. If you confine yourself simply to fossil fuel CO2, something that has been rather exhaustively studied, it is still true, but certainly to a lesser degree and, by all indications, relatively insignificant. I'm glad to see you taking the "wait and see" attitude, but would you suggest that our massive expenditures ASSUMING CO2 is the problem ought to wait until the "science is settled"?
ReplyDeleteI would say a lot is at stake in the climate change issue. We made the decision to trust Donald Trump on the issue. We can only hope he is right.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
I am so done with this we can't know if humans are causing global warming, whose right theme.
ReplyDeleteWe do know. They are. 97% of climate scientists are in agreement about this. They continue to study it to improve their very complex models, which do not make perfect projections of how global warming is and will change the climate. That is the only uncertainty. (not - is the earth warning? are people the main cause?)
Why are people so dismissive of expert opinion and very strong scientific consensus?
Has anyone besides me noticed how Minnesota winters have changed from 40 years ago? To me the observable evidence of climate change right here in our state is hard to miss.
Why are people so dismissive of expert opinion and very strong scientific consensus?
ReplyDeleteA couple of reasons. First off, there is a lot of money and a lot of resources invested in the status quo. People who have jobs vote. People who didn't get jobs don't vote. The future doesn't vote. Companies who are invested in the status quo are able and willing to invest in campaigns and lobbyists dedicated to perpetuating their interests. And in our country, our political system is designed to protect vested interests.
I also think people don't know how science works. They think it offers certainty a lot, that it trades in definitive answers. They think science can and should be as reliable as an electric light which turns on when a switch is toggled. Somehow a view has become current that science isn't real unless it is certain. I think this might be the result of watching too many CSI shows on television.
--Hiram
"To me the observable evidence of climate change right here in our state is hard to miss."
ReplyDeleteLaurie, you just did it again. You observe signs of what is most likely a global warming, noticeable over a period of decades. You immediately leap to the totally unwarranted conclusion that fossil fuel burning is the main CAUSE of this, despite the near-total absence of any such scientific evidence. These "scientists" either do not have it or refuse to divulge it, and even attempt to hide evidence to the contrary. I am not sure why you trust them, other than that they are self-proclaimed experts. They have been wrong so many times we almost cannot count, but they're still experts.
Let me test your belief in experts. Let us say I am a PhD statistician working for the NFL. I am an expert, and I have 100% consensus because I am the only one. I have created a model of the League and I say, with 95% certainty, that the Minnesota Vikings will win the last game of the 2042 regular season, because they will certainly score between 3 and 48 points. Now, how large of a wager do you want to make, today, that the Vikings will win that game?
ReplyDeleteHiram, to the degree that science is based in mathematics, there SHOULD be a certainty to it. That is why I keep asking for somebody to tell me, in numbers, how significant the contribution of fossil fuels is to total CO2. There is a number, someplace, and it matters greatly what it is. Same with the percentage of total warming contributed by CO2. There is a number, somewhere, and what we want to know is whether that number, the "degrees of warming per ppm of CO2" is significant. The reason we have such uncertainty is because we have too many people sharing too many billions of dollars by NOT telling us this fundamental information.
ReplyDeleteto the degree that science is based in mathematics, there SHOULD be a certainty to it.
ReplyDeleteWell science isn't at all based on mathematics, so that doesn't provide a rationale for scientific certainty.
--Hiram
I have created a model of the League and I say, with 95% certainty, that the Minnesota Vikings will win the last game of the 2042 regular season, because they will certainly score between 3 and 48 points. Now, how large of a wager do you want to make, today, that the Vikings will win that game?
ReplyDeleteWell, of course, you can't create such a model for the Vikings. Why not posit a model which does generate those kinds of numbers? A computer random number generator, for example. For a more of a real world example, think of roulette wheel. What statistics will tell you is how a large number of bets will perform, but it will not give you any certainty about an individual bet. If you flip a coin ten times, I can't tell you how many times it will come up heads or tails. But if you flip it ten million times, I can tell you a lot more about the ratio of heads and tales. Do you want to wager on the ten times? Or the ten million times? It depends on how much risk you want to take, and how much risk the house wants to take.
--Hiram
Something to understand about football wagering. A Las Vegas point spread is not a prediction of the outcome of a game; it's a prediction of how bettors will bet. A bookie, as a bookie, could care less about the outcome of games. What he does care about is to make sure the pools of bettors on both sides of the bet are even.
ReplyDelete--Hiram
It seems our obsession with Climate Change has overwhelmed the concept of this post...
ReplyDeleteOh well... It seems that folks will continue to see themselves as the logical, rational, informed individual, and continue to discount others as the stupid idiot...
I spent the weekend helping my parents with their latest business hobby. A 9 hole prairie golf course near their lake home... Which meant I spent a lot time using a shovel to prepare for some pending construction work. (I am so sore tonight)
Since we spend a lot of time arguing about FOX News and politics, I asked them about this topic. My Father went off explaining how Obama had seemed so smug and egotistical. The irony of course is that he has no problem with Trump's grand standing. And my Mother explained how ego / pride is a sin. The irony in that statement is that neither of my Parents ever are willing to question the "knowledge" they learn from FOX or Rush... I am chastised often for bringing up different perspectives and data.
So maybe this is why so few people are wise at the end of their life... Sometime in their 40's they stop being curious and questioning things / themselves... My goal of course is to avoid stagnation like the plague. I thank you all for continually challenging my beliefs, information, etc!!!!
Would it not be odd if we saw others and their opinions as the "logical, rational, informed" ones and ourselves as stupid idiots? OF COURSE we have some confidence in our own mental faculties- we must or we couldn't function. There's an old book about "the man who mistook his wife for a hat." And yet even he was generally competent to live his own life, and allowed to hold to his opinion. See the Desiderata again-- "listen to others, even the dull and ignorant, for they too have their story."
ReplyDeleteAnd some of my favorite aphorisms apply here. "Ignorance can be cured by education, but stupidity is forever." "There are none so blind as those who will not see" (paraphrase Jeremiah 5:21). "Ve grow so soon oldt und so late Schmart" (Dutch-American wall plaque) and "Truth is where you find it."
But please, have a little respect for your parents. The ARE wiser than you know (which you should have learned about age 22). You have admitted to moving towards being a Perceiver on the MB scale. Your parents (and I) have learned to be more Judgmental. We watch Fox News because we hear "fair and balanced" so we don't need to try to sort out the truth from lop-sided coverage like the Huffington Post or Salon. It isn't that we aren't still learning, it is that we've studied these things long enough to make up our minds. It isn't that we aren't open to new information that might change our minds, it's just that nobody has a convincing argument to the contrary and the best they can do is to "agree to disagree" (which is tough in families).
And I appreciate your frustration; I do. Debating a Climate Zealot is always a fool's errand. The "theory" is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing."
Jerry,
ReplyDeleteThe challenge we have here is that to most of us you are this person.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."
As for my Parents, I have a great deal of respect for their strengths and love them in spite of their faults.
And of course to me, this just means your cup is full... Therefore no more wisdom can be gained.
"we've studied these things long enough to make up our minds"
So true. I'm blind to the Truth. PLEASE, show it to me. All I ever seem to get is somebody's opinion about what the truth may be, never the concrete evidence. Certainly that's OK in faith matters like "is there a God." It is understandable, even desirable, in debatable matters like "is a Guaranteed Income a good idea?" But Climate Change should not be a matter of religious faith or of conjecture over some possible course of action; it is at root a matter of science, it's strengths and its limitations. There need to be concrete facts establishing a logical conclusion before we run off to "solve" some problem beyond our mere curiosity.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you can judge my cup as full until you have offered me something worth putting in it.
John, when you can (and take Laurie with you) go back and look at my NFL comment. I have created a more or less exact analogy to the Climate Change story and would appreciate a comment.
ReplyDelete"Let me test your belief in experts. Let us say I am a PhD statistician working for the NFL. I am an expert, and I have 100% consensus because I am the only one. I have created a model of the League and I say, with 95% certainty, that the Minnesota Vikings will win the last game of the 2042 regular season, because they will certainly score between 3 and 48 points. Now, how large of a wager do you want to make, today, that the Vikings will win that game?" Jerry
ReplyDeleteHere are my quick thoughts:
- there are many more than 1 expert creating the consensus forecasts
- IPCC documents much more narrow bands by RPC than your 3 to 48 points.
- betting on a Vikings game carries little risk to our children, where as betting that climate change is not real could kill many of them.
Now if your example included many experts studying the Vikings, creating models based on specific choices and one may die if they made the wrong bet... It would be more like the climate change conundrum.
Nonetheless, we are trusting a "consensus" of people, exactly none of whom can predict the future with any reliability, and many of Whom do not have enough information to make an informed judgment.
ReplyDeleteThe IPCC documents different RPCs because they have absolutely no idea what the future will bring in terms of the hundreds of variables that create climate. I have read that, of the 200 variables involved in the climate models, approximately 12 of them are "well understood." In this analogy, one would think that which team they were playing and how many points THAT team would score would matter as to who wins the game, and that assumes there even IS a Minnesota Vikings or NFL 25 years from now. The IPCC expresses their prediction as a very wide spread of possibilities simply because there ARE a very wide range of possibilities, even assuming the models are right. Not only that, They arbitrarily decide that some value of warming is "catastrophic"-- "winning" in this analogy. Would a 27-26 defeat disprove the model? Would a 27-26 win prove it?
There is one skeptical scientist who actually made money by betting against the UK's "Met Office" on temperatures (apparently something you can do in England). They used a climate model, and he used sunspot data. He got near-rich.
When it comes to "Placing a bet" in the amount of billions of dollars, I much prefer a "sure thing," based on expert analysis of history to some "expert" assuring me that the winner of the next race will be one of the 16 horses.
In the analogy, this prediction is so far in the future that even our children will be middle-aged, and the IPCC's prediction is so far in the future that children unborn will be dead before we will know whether they were correct or not. If we make a big enough bet on the Vikings today, by the time the game is actually played we will have deprived our kids of the better life they could have had, if not wasted on "a silly game." Right now we are investing billions in trying to prevent what is, quite apparently, some sort of game in which, to quote WOPR, "the only way to win is not to play."
And let's talk about raw risk again. suppose we do what South Australia did, and make a massive expenditure and commitment to green energy, only to discover that we have spent vast sums to make ourselves energy poor, and that the climate has not changed in any notable way. [The IPCC used to say that, if humans stopped emitting CO2 today (I don't think they meant we should all stop breathing), the world would continue to get warmer for the next 200 years.] Would it have not been better to have NOT spent that money and instead made life better for millions of people and set them up to be better able to respond to natural changes in the environment?
Actually they need the different RPC's because they do not know what the people of Earth will do. I mean you are recommending that we pursue RCP8.5. "Balls to the walls" "Burn baby burn"
ReplyDeleteBy the way, have you noticed that Irma is now the biggest baddest hurricane ever out of the Atlantic. I wonder what that will cost us in money and lives.
actually, all I am "recommending" is the same thing that you yourself have occasionally said, which is that we should "wait and see." In other words, let us not make any radical policy shifts or expend vast sums of money in pursuit of some goal that may be ineffective at best, or largely irrelevant. If the scientists "do not know" what the future will bring then they have no business telling us they are "95% certain" that we are doomed. I can tell you right now, and I'm no expert, that the Vikings will score between 3 and 48 points in their next game, but I am not willing to bet anything on the proposition that they will win. Let us face it, the politicians and postulates of the Global Warming religion have gotten the policy cart WAY ahead of the scientific horse.
ReplyDeleteI share your concern about Irma, but I am Amazed that anyone would think that massive subsidies for windmills could have prevented it?
Slight correction:
ReplyDeleteI see a foggy road with a potential for moose standing on it, therefore slowing down is the wise thing to do. (ie continue orderly transition from fossil fuels to renewables)
You in your own words awhile back said that from your perception the road is clear and sunny, so no change is required. In other words more humans using ever more fossil fuels.
As for Irma:
If her fury is even 10% increased by the warmer oceans and air... Those wind turbine and solar panel subsidies may look like a bargain. Not to mention that wind and solar farms are creating 10's of thousands of jobs across America.
ReplyDeleteOK, let us go back to your analogy. I want to know the number of moose on the road per mile of highway. And I want to know exactly what "foggy" means in terms of visibility compared with the stopping distance at the speed I am traveling. If the possibility of moose is very low I am probably going to take the chance. If the visibility exceeds my stopping distance, I'm not even going to slow down for the possible moose but I will probably slow down a bit for oncoming traffic. Now if we are talking Newfoundland, where there are more moose than people and where occasionally the Fog gets very thick, yes, I slow down as needed. to do otherwise would be foolhardy. But I'm not in Newfoundland.
But what you are talking about is a situation that may or may not occur years into the far distant future, and our brakes– our ability to adapt – are in excellent condition. We cannot, by all evidence, prevent climate change anymore than we can prevent that moose from wandering out onto the road.
I see you've subscribed to the "broken window fallacy" of economics. Hurricane Harvey will create tens of thousands of jobs and economic activity. But wouldn't it have been better to spend that money say, building new and better homes in the Houston area? It is the same with windmills. Why are we building energy infrastructure that costs more than what we currently have and contributes essentially zero to solving a problem that may or may not even exist? What is the best use of that money right now, today?
I am guessing we will need to agree to disagree. I am certain the topic will come up again.
ReplyDeleteWell, I must concede that the topic here does not lend itself to an erudite and objective discussion.
ReplyDeletePeople of Jerry's Ilk Putting Lives at Risk
ReplyDeleteMoose