Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 04:59 AM GMT на 09 Март, 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Form of Argument: Adventures in Rhetoric

In 2009 I received some questions from Westview High School in San Diego, California (see here). A few weeks ago I heard from the same teacher, Bob Whitney, and he was curious about how I would respond to the issues raised in this posting on Rogues and Scholars. This is a long exchange of postings between two engineers, Burt Rutan and Brian Angliss.

In my blog, for better or worse, I have tended away from engaging in the type of discussions that are represented by this exchange. A couple of reasons: One, this line of argument that works to discredit climate change is at this point political, and as I argued here, engagement in this argument is not productive. Two, while it is necessary to address the factual inaccuracies that are stated in this type of discussion, it has been done repeatedly and well by many others (look around, for instance, at Real Climate). That said – what do you say to students who have the discussion between Rutan and Angliss at hand and want to make sense of it all?

When I look at the words used by Rutan, I see words anchored around fraud, dishonesty, alarmist - this is an argument that relies on discredit and personal attacks. Such an attack quickly raises the emotion and takes the discussion away from a knowledge base. It is the sort of attack that has become pervasive in our political conversation in general, and it is an excellent diversionary tactic. It raises the specter of distrust.

I tell students to look for the form of argument. So, first, does it rely on discredit? In this case, it does rely on discredit, and it relies on discrediting thousands of scientists, writing many thousands of papers, over many years, from many countries. It is fundamentally conspiratorial, and not only is it conspiratorial it requires that many years before climate change emerged as an important environmental problem, that the foundation for the conspiracy was being laid down. To me, this lacks any credibility in reason, but if conspiratorial beliefs are held, then it is virtually impossible to provide convincing counterarguments to the person who holds those beliefs. If the form of argument relies on conspiracy, then it is immediately suspect.

One way to address, rationally, issues of dishonesty and conspiracy is to seek external review and, ultimately, judgment. The body of climate science research has been subject to extensive external review. Governments, the National Academy (here as well), non-climate-science scientists, and lawyers have reviewed climate science. They have all affirmed the results to be well founded and based on proper scientific investigation. The studies have documented that scientists have foibles and that peer review captures the vast majority of errors and prejudices and that there are no fundamental shortcomings in the conclusions that the Earth has, at its surface, on average, warmed and with virtual certainty will continue to warm. But if you dismiss climate science on the principle of conspiratorial malfeasance, then it is simple to dismiss external review. If you stand on only your own review and have the foundation to dismiss all external review because of conspiracy, then you are always right. Hence there is no discussion. There is no possible way forward for the student other than looking at the evidence and behavior and form of argument and standing as judge.

Does the argument rely on invoking moral levers of trust and distrust based on the belief of conspiratorial fraud?

Does the argument pull out single pieces of information and ignore other pieces of information? Does the argument rely on planting belief and disbelief by reaching for metaphors outside of the field? Does the argument assert that broad claims are made when there is no evidence to support such assertion?

So for the student – you have to think about the whole, not just isolated points that are meant to be provocative and planted to grow on an emotional state fueled by claims of amoral behavior.

Yes, carbon dioxide acts as a fertilizer, but is that the complete story of the vigor of plants? Is there any denial of this role of carbon dioxide in the climate literature? Can you find quantitative, science-based studies of the carbon dioxide fertilization effect?

Yes, there was a lot of carbon dioxide when there were dinosaurs; it was warm – what is the relevance of that argument? Does that establish that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant? Can’t things that are natural also be a pollutant? Isn’t that why we don’t want mine tailings in our drinking water? Isn’t that why we manage our sewage?

There is a wealth of information out there. There are ways to analyze that information, to evaluate its validity. If this sort of argument is encumbering, then there is a need to synthesize, personally, that information to form defensible conclusions.

If you look at the form of argument that relies on emotion, picks out pieces of information to support the argument, ignores pieces of information that do not support the argument, paints moods by long reaching metaphors, and ultimately relies on a belief that a field is corrupt, and that corruption requires a conspiratorial organization extending across decades and all nations – if that is the form of argument, then how is that robust? How is that believable? It is a prejudicial form of argument directed only at making someone believe the person making the argument; it is not seeking knowledge-based understanding.

That’s how I would look at that discussion.

r



Figure 1: A summary figure I use after I walk through about 10 lectures on the basics of climate science and global warming.

If you made it here - Here are links to a PDF and a Powerpoint Slide Show that includes several viewgraphs on thinking about arguments that are frequently raised in the political argument opposing the science of climate change. (They are each about 5 MB).

PDF

PPS


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 600 - 550

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

600. Birthmark
04:02 PM GMT на 25 Март, 2012
This is why I think Goddard is hilariously pitiful. In this case he actually picks a cherry inside a cherry with respect to temperature and a plain old cherry with respect to Arctic sea ice. In both cases he is either attempting to deceive or simply doesn't know what climate is.

First, let me demonstrate that Goddard is both cherry-picking and wrong about temperature. His major problem is that climate is the trend in temperature not the temperature itself. With that in mind, take a gander at the climate:


If you use the actual relevant data instead of cherry-picked comparisons, it is easily evident that the climate is rapidly warming over the last seventeen years. (You might also note that Goddard picked the temperature index with least amount of increase --hence, it is a cherry inside a cherry, or a cherry^2 if you prefer. LOL

He also cherry picks the Sea ice data, again making the mistake (if that is what it is) of simply comparing to dates chosen arbitrarily by him instead of looking at the correct data --the trend. Here is the trend in Arctic sea ice for the last seventeen years:


Obviously, Goddard's cherry pick is not at all representative of what is happening in the Arctic climatically. This is why I don't take Goddard seriously. He simply isn't credible.

He should change his blog's title to "Fake Science" or "Real Bad Science" because either of those are more honest assessments of that blog than the current title.

(Feel free to invite him over here to defend his nonsense. I think he would be fun to disassemble!)
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
599. iceagecoming
03:56 PM GMT на 25 Март, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
Wow, still another GBCW post from Oss?

Anyway, found this at the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang blog:

Warmest astronomical winter on record in Washington, D.C.

The winter of 2011-2012, by the astronomical definition, was the warmest on record in Washington, D.C. according to the National Weather Service.

The average temperature was 45.6 degrees, nearly two degrees above the previous record holder of 1989-90, when the average temperature was 43.7 degrees. Records have been maintained since 1871.

Remarkably, Washington only logged 24 days when temperatures reached 32 or lower, the fewest such days on record.

- - -

The exceptionally warm winter follows a number of other notably warm seasons in Washington in the last two years:

* Astronomical spring in 2010 was the warmest on record

* Meteorological summer in 2010 was the hottest on record

* Astronomical summer in 2010 was the second hottest on record

* Meteorological summer in 2011 was the second hottest on record


The Capital Gang, incredibly scientific.

When I posted this last year your comment was "regional" , could it be as stated below that
"hot heads alarmists" like McKibben only like
to the mention the data that agrees with there
distorted agenda.



December 2010 update: Second coldest since 1659

Paul Hudson | 16:54 UK time, Tuesday, 4 January 2011

Met Office provisional figures show that December 2010 with a mean CET temperature of -0.7C was the second coldest since records began in 1659, beaten only by December 1890 which had a mean of -0.8C.

The diagram below shows how the month ranks with other cold Decembers, a truly memorable month climatologically.


Link



We shall see. Cold intensifying at the pole http://www.weatherbell.com/jb/?p=1064, and down under no less ready to throw the warmers a bone just yet http://www.theage.com.au/travel/travel-news/snow-a rrives-two-months-early-20110412-1dbng.html.

Of course this is just weather, until we get the first heatwave, then get ready for the news items *sigh*



by Bill McKibben, via Huffington Post


My bet is he’ll talk about what’s he’s called his “all of the above” energy policy — about how America has drilled a record number of oil and gas wells during his administration, about how fracking technology has spread around the country. He’ll laud sun and wind, but as supplements to gas and oil, not replacements.

And to make it especially painful to ranchers, indigenous people, and assorted environmentalists, he may do it while standing next to pipe waiting to be laid for the southern half of the Keystone Pipeline, an enterprise he has promised to “expedite.”


Amidst the many environmental disappointments of the Obama administration — the fizzled Copenhagen conference, the opening of vast swathes of the Arctic to drilling and huge stretches of federal land across the northern Plains to coal-mining, the failure to work for climate legislation in the Senate, the shameful blocking of regulations to control ozone — the president has done one somewhat brave thing. He responded to the largest outpouring of environmental enthusiasm so far this millennium and denied a permit for the main Keystone XL pipe from Canada’s tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico.

Cynics said he did so just to avoid disappointing young people before the election, and pointed out that he invited pipeline proponent Transcanada to reapply for the permit. It’s hard not to wonder if those cynics might be right, now that he’s going to Oklahoma to laud the southern half of the project just as Transcanada executives have requested.





POLL-Growing number of Americans see country on wrong track
Wed Mar 9, 2011 4:33pm GMT
Print | Single Page[-] Text [+]WASHINGTON, March 9 (Reuters) - Americans, who are suffering from high gasoline prices, believe the United States is on the wrong track by a large margin, in a fresh challenge for President Barack Obama, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said on Wednesday.
The proportion of Americans who believe the country is on the right track dropped 7 points in the past month to 31 percent, and 64 percent think the country is on the wrong track.

It was the highest number of people in an Ipsos poll who believe the country is going in the wrong direction since Obama took office in January 2009.




Link
Member Since: Јануари 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1081
598. Neapolitan
03:52 PM GMT на 25 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Arctic ice identical to 17 years ago and temps are cooler than 17 years ago. Must be that dreaded global warming:

Link
Nah, just that dreaded Goddard, the d00d who has a clear and demonstrable lack of ethics or knowledge. But keep listening to him!

Ice area this year maxed out at 13.67 million km2. Why, to find more ice than that at the maximum, one would have to go all the way back to 2010, when it peaked at 13.81 million km2! Or 2009 (13.85 million km2)! Or 2008 (13.90 million km2)!

Silly denialists. Silly, silly denialists...
Member Since: Ноември 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13606
597. NeapolitanFan
01:43 PM GMT на 25 Март, 2012
Arctic ice identical to 17 years ago and temps are cooler than 17 years ago. Must be that dreaded global warming:

Link
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
596. Neapolitan
11:41 AM GMT на 25 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I've always questioned the ability of man to calculate, to any degree of accuracy, the average global temperature. Now I've discovered the method. For historical purposes, Phil Jones, of Climategate fame, calculated the entire average temp of the Southern Hemisphere using one thermometer. No wonder it's so easy. Can't vouch for the accuracy, though.

Link
Apparently the fictional Mr. Goddard is unaware of the statistical term "margin of error", and/or he's blind to the error shading on that graph, and/or he's simply lying (again) to his gullible readers. I go with 'D': all of the above.
Member Since: Ноември 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13606
595. Neapolitan
11:39 AM GMT на 25 Март, 2012
Remember a few of the Rules of DenialWorld:

--Research funded in part by government grants is not just wrong, but criminally fraudulent. However, research funded by fossil fuel interests is almost certainly okay.

--Proxy data that support AGWT are inaccurate, invalid, and based on an inadequate number of samples. Meanwhile, proxy data that seem to support some other theory are absolutely beyond question.

--Ground- and space-based thermometers that show warming are inaccurate, poorly-sited, uncalibrated, and invalid. But thermometers that show any cooling whatsoever are beyond question or repute.

--People with doctorate-level degrees in climate sciences are uneducated fools and pawns of the fraudsters. However, bodybuilders and one-time small-market TV weather readers with no degrees and/or zero formal learning in the climate sciences are unquestioned experts, so long as they deny AGWT.

--There's no such thing as consensus; the fact that 97% of practicing climatologists and 100% of national and international scientific bodies support AGWT means absolutely nothing. The ten thousand or so dead people, fictional characters, and assorted other non-scientists who signed the Oregon Petition, however, are fundamental proof that the planet isn't warming.

--Increasing multiple widespread heat waves and droughts and floods and severe storms and such are just weather. Snow in Alaska, however, is evidence of cooling.

--Any long-term temperature graph of the planet shows short-term up-and-down variations that are part of an unmistakable long-term upward trend merely reflect the urban heat island effect and/or fraud. However, the downward short-term dips on those graphs are a sure sign of global cooling.
Member Since: Ноември 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13606
594. Birthmark
04:31 AM GMT на 25 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


The MWP didn't reach current temps?

No, it did not. Of course, that's just what the evidence says. I have no idea what effect your endocrine system might have on the MWP.

The rest of your post was much the same. Plenty of unsubstantiated nonsense which needs no answer.
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
593. NeapolitanFan
03:32 AM GMT на 25 Март, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

No, the IPCC simply stated what could be supported by the data.

This paper is new information. It will have to be checked to see if it is valid, of course. If so, you can expect to see the new data incorporated into future temperature reconstructions.

But don't get your hopes up to high. The MWP *still* won't reach current world temperatures.

And, hey, aren't you extrapolating the temperature for the entire Southern Hemisphere on the basis of one "thermometer?" Weren't you just complaining about someone you believe is doing that? And that complaint was for a short term reading. You are trying to extrapolate an entire hemisphere for a period of hundreds of years on the basis of one "thermometer."

Small wonder your posts cause me so much laughter.


The MWP didn't reach current temps? Lay off the peyote. I see CRU went back and revised past temperature down to make later years warmer. If you don't like the temperature records, just revise them.
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
592. Birthmark
05:01 PM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
The IPCC has tried to diminish the importance of the MWP by confining it to a limited area and Mikey Mann et al have tried to eliminate it from historical temperature records completely. New research demonstrates that the MWP (and the Little Ice Age) was indeed global. Another IPCC failure. And, Birthy, it's peer-reviewed!:

Link

No, the IPCC simply stated what could be supported by the data.

This paper is new information. It will have to be checked to see if it is valid, of course. If so, you can expect to see the new data incorporated into future temperature reconstructions.

But don't get your hopes up to high. The MWP *still* won't reach current world temperatures.

And, hey, aren't you extrapolating the temperature for the entire Southern Hemisphere on the basis of one "thermometer?" Weren't you just complaining about someone you believe is doing that? And that complaint was for a short term reading. You are trying to extrapolate an entire hemisphere for a period of hundreds of years on the basis of one "thermometer."

Small wonder your posts cause me so much laughter.
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
591. Birthmark
04:56 PM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I've always questioned the ability of man to calculate, to any degree of accuracy, the average global temperature. Now I've discovered the method. For historical purposes, Phil Jones, of Climategate fame, calculated the entire average temp of the Southern Hemisphere using one thermometer. No wonder it's so easy. Can't vouch for the accuracy, though.

Link

Okay, I've taken only a look at the source. How much do you want to bet that Goddard's claim is false or wildly out of context? The loser of the bet will donate to the winner's favorite charity.

Are we on?
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
590. NeapolitanFan
04:53 PM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
The IPCC has tried to diminish the importance of the MWP by confining it to a limited area and Mikey Mann et al have tried to eliminate it from historical temperature records completely. New research demonstrates that the MWP (and the Little Ice Age) was indeed global. Another IPCC failure. And, Birthy, it's peer-reviewed!:

Link
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
589. NeapolitanFan
04:25 PM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
I've always questioned the ability of man to calculate, to any degree of accuracy, the average global temperature. Now I've discovered the method. For historical purposes, Phil Jones, of Climategate fame, calculated the entire average temp of the Southern Hemisphere using one thermometer. No wonder it's so easy. Can't vouch for the accuracy, though.

Link
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
588. Birthmark
02:49 PM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Peer review? You mean these climate "scientists" can make any statement they like as many did predicting that snow was over, but we should just ignore it unless it's written in a formal paper?

That might be the case sometimes. Other times that isn't the case. The context of the comment is the determining factor. For instance, a comment that is directly quoted from a lecture (or video- or audio- taped or transcript) should be considered to be a statement of the speaker's position. But even then, that's just the speaker's opinion in many cases --unlike a paper in a reputable, peer-reviewed which depends upon what that person can scientifically support with evidence.

By contrast, a newspaper claiming that someone said something (without using quotation marks) is pretty worthless in most cases. It is worthless because it depends upon the reporter's understanding of what was said, its context, and any caveats to the statement. It's fairly unlikely that a reporter will have all that. So that reporter's synopsis of a scientist's statement is quite likely to contain error for all but the simplest of statements.

Even direct quotes should be viewed with skepticism --particularly in cases where such a quote contradicts what the quoted person has previously said. Quotes can be bungled, attributed to the wrong person, and are often only partial quotes. Partial quotes easily can give a false impression of what the speaker's meaning was intended to be. And sometimes people, even the smartest, just say stupid things. Anyone who has ever been interviewed can tell you that. Most of the time, the stupid thing said can be fairly unimportant, barely noticeable. Every once in a while, though, you can really screw up. (There is a certain amount of pressure in live interviews --time being the most common for live TV or radio.) So my advice is any direct quote that seems odd, over-the-top, or just plain stupid requires a second source and an attempt to put it in context.

Of course, all of that is if you are interested in the truth or in being fair. ;)

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Now I've heard everything.

Actually, you heard nothing. You made it up.

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Here's another IPCC "scientist" seeing the light.

Would that be the light of simply making comments based on nothing but that are politically or emotionally pleasing to himself and you? If so, then yes, he is "enlightened". Of course, such a position considerably changes the meaning of "enlightened" to such an extent that the word becomes meaningless.

His entire statement is vacuous.
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
587. Neapolitan
01:33 PM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:
If you want to continue this argument (which I really don't), please answer Birthmarks question: what is your mechanism for the heating?, i.e. how do you explain the rapid heating and ice loss?
Ummm...I think...well, Watts says...er, sunspots...no, wait, cloud forcing...but it snowed in Montana this week...natural cycles...or maybe...aw, heck: Al Gore is fat, so there!!!
Member Since: Ноември 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13606
586. Neapolitan
01:30 PM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
>Here's another IPCC "scientist" seeing the light. He states unequivocally that there is no evidence that any human-cause CO2 emissions have any effect on climate, harmful or otherwise. And it's peer reviewed! What a joke. Peer review is something akin to letting convicts decide on whether another convict should be granted parole.

Link
As Brian was kind enough to point out, Dr. Gray has a degree in chemistry--something he put to use during a long career as a coal industry researcher. Gray has never published a peer-reviewed article on climate science. He has published articles on coal, but the most recent of those was two decades ago. In short, then, Gray is a non-practicing, non-publishing scientist in a field unrelated to climate who lives off of his fossil fuel industry pension and speaking fees for the fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute. I realize that makes him an 'expert' in Denial World, but it doesn't mean much in the real world.

(And, FWIW, Gray's constant claim of being an "expert reviewer on every IPCC paper" is something only about a million others can brag about; being an "expert reviewer" for the IPCC means a) asking to see a draft report and b) not speaking about it in public until it's released.)
Member Since: Ноември 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13606
585. greentortuloni
08:49 AM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
Quoting martinitony:


I will only address this statement now.
" Else, there is never causation and no theory is possible."
This is a false statement. I don't mean that you are lying. I mean that you are wrong.
Here is an example. If I heat paper to 451 F it ignites and burns. I can prove that the act of doing this is the cause by running experiments. That is cause and effect.
Think. The reason we run experiments testing a hypotheses is typically because of correlation.We observe something that we believe may be a cause. Then we run experiments to test the hypothesis in order to prove that it wasn't just correlation but was function.
Scientists have sometimes gone years, generations and even centuries believing a hypothesis that was wrong because they were unable to test it.
It is currently very difficult to test the CO2 global warming hypothesis because the world would have to be the experiment. I am not trying to set up an impossible situation, but just having correlation is not proof.


I never said correlation was proof. On the other hand, you stated that correlation was not proof of anything.. I understood your point to be that all the correlation that exists bewteen global warming theory and observed evidence is meaningless.

This was in response to your posting a graph with a statistically meaningless surge of thin briny ice (menaingless incomparison the years of data showing a decline.)

So now i am confused. What was your point with the graph in light of your truism that correlation doesn't equal proof?

You then noted the need for repeatability in science and how difficult it is to test global warming for that. It is a fair point philosophically. You used the example of heating paper and burning paper.

First, as per your example of cracks in the sidewalka nd the sun, what you have shown is correlation, not cause. It seems like cause/effect because 1) you have a much denser set of statistics (i.e. time divided so that hypothetical causes have to line up temperaly with effects in a 100% correlation which is very difficult if it were random) and 2) you have a mechanism in mind.

You already know that this result is accepted part of theory. But it isn't so obvious, remember caloric and all that Greek garbage? No one accepts correlation as theory without mechanism.

This is where global warming comes in: it is a theory not a set of statistics because ti provides a mechanism: CO2. The mechanism is repeatable and 'proven' as much as anything can be.

You on the other hand 1) don't provide mechanism and 2) don't counter the mechanism that is provided. You merely state "oh, well correlation isn't proof so therefore the theory is wrong."

This is why I didn't state correlation as a fact by itself... however correlation is hugely indicative of mechanism. You know this because you , like everyone else, makes millions of decisions everyday based on correlation + mechanism.

In summary, global warming theory provides mechanism plus evidence, not just 'historical record' but in fact an anomolous variation from historical record: the speed of warming is unprecedented.

If you want to continue this argument (which I really don't), please answer Birthmarks question: what is your mechanism for the heating?, i.e. how do you explain the rapid heating and ice loss?
Member Since: Јуни 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
584. BaltimoreBrian
02:38 AM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
Dr. Vincent Gray has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Cambridge University after studies on incendiary bomb fluids made from aluminum soaps. Dr. Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.
Member Since: Август 9, 2011 Posts: 26 Comments: 8714
583. NeapolitanFan
02:34 AM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

You showed nothing but further claims.

The first claim was based on a newspaper article about Hansen did not quote him. It merely attributed a statement to him --a statement that I easily demonstrated was at odds with his work.

The second claim does the exact same thing. It cites a newspaper that attributes statements to Hansen but it isn't a quote. Such attributions cannot be accepted as fact --particularly since those statements conflict with Hansen's work.

Your link then goes on to claim that in J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, %u201CGlobal Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9346 Hansen claims "The 1 [deg]C level of warming is exceeded during the next few decades in both scenarios A and B; in scenario A that level of warming is reached in less than 20 years and in scenario B it is reached within the next 25 years." And in the same paper that Hansen claimed, "The computed temperature changes are sufficient to have a large impact on other parts of the biosphere. A warnting of 0.5[deg] C per decade implies typically a poleward shift of isotherms by 50 to 75 km per decade. This is an order of magnitude faster than the major climate shifts in the paleoclimate record, and faster than most plants and trees are thought to be capable of naturally nilgrating [Davis,1988]%u201D What your link does wrong is try to turn projections under various scenarios into "predictions"...while ignore the scenarios that didn't comport with the blogger's (and apparently your) agenda. In short, the blogger lied.

I stopped reading there since it's readily apparent that the blogger at your link is willing to lie, misrepresent, and deceive to try to twist reality into the shape that they emotionally or politically or otherwise need to make them feel better. I don't waste my time on such people whether they agree with me or not.

You still haven't "shown me the paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that ever claimed "snow as we know it" was going to end.", which was my challenge to you.

I suspect that you can't. (I'm pretty sure of it.)


Peer review? You mean these climate "scientists" can make any statement they like as many did predicting that snow was over, but we should just ignore it unless it's written in a formal paper? Now I've heard everything. They can go shooting off their mouths making claims that turn out to be false just like every other prediction they've made, but we should just ignore it because it wasn't written down. Turns out it was written down -- they were predictions made during interviews for newspaper and magazine articles. You warmists are losing your minds.

Here's another IPCC "scientist" seeing the light. He states unequivocally that there is no evidence that any human-cause CO2 emissions have any effect on climate, harmful or otherwise. And it's peer reviewed! What a joke. Peer review is something akin to letting convicts decide on whether another convict should be granted parole.

Link
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
582. Xandra
12:12 AM GMT на 24 Март, 2012
The Historic Anomalous Temperature Event of March 2012

Member Since: Ноември 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
581. Xandra
05:23 PM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:

More from the press release,

"It was the warmest decade ever recorded for global land surface, sea surface and for every continent.

"Most parts of Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Asia and northern Africa recorded temperatures for the decade between 1°C and 3°C above the 1961-1990 average.

Nearly 90% of the countries involved in the assessment experienced their warmest decade on record."

Member Since: Ноември 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
580. Patrap
04:34 PM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
..the cooling is going to start any day now.
Member Since: Јули 3, 2005 Posts: 426 Comments: 129093
579. Neapolitan
04:32 PM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
This just came over the internets--not that it'll come as a shock to anyone who's been watching and reading:

2001-2010 warmest decade on record: WMO

"Climate change has accelerated in the past decade, the UN weather agency said Friday, releasing data showing that 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.

The 10-year period was also marked by extreme levels of rain or snowfall, leading to significant flooding on all continents, while droughts affected parts of East Africa and North America.

"The decade 2001-2010 was the warmest since records began in 1850, with global land and sea surface temperatures estimated at 0.46 degrees Celsius above the long term average of 14.0 degrees Celsius (57.2 degrees Fahrenheit)," said the World Meteorological Organisation.

Nine of the 10 years also counted among the 10 warmest on record, it added, noting that "climate change accelerated" during the first decade of the 21st century.

The trend continued in 2011, which was the warmest year on record despite La Nina -- a weather pattern which has a cooling effect.

The average temperature in 2011 was 0.40 degrees Celsius above the long term average, said the WMO.

"This 2011 annual assessment confirms the findings of the previous WMO annual statements that climate change is happening now and is not some distant future threat," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

"The world is warming because of human activities and this is resulting in far-reaching and potentially irreversible impacts on our Earth, atmosphere and oceans," he added.

The UN weather agency noted that during the decade, "numerous weather and climate extremes affected almost every part of the globe with flooding, droughts, cyclones, heat waves and cold waves."

Historical floods hit Eastern Europe in 2001 and 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia and Australia in 2010.

Global precipitation -- including rain or snow -- reached the second highest average since 1901. THe highest average was recorded for the decade 1951-1960.

Meanwhile for the North Atlantic basin, the 10 years marked the highest level of tropical cyclone activity, including Hurricane Katrina which struck the United States in 2005 and Cyclone Nargis which hit Myanmar in 2008."
Member Since: Ноември 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13606
578. RevElvis
03:41 PM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
"How to Avoid the Truth About Climate Change" - Dr. Barry Bickmore

www.youtube.com (Link)




Member Since: Септември 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
577. Birthmark
02:05 PM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


No predictions? You truly are living in a denialist world. I showed you more than half a dozen quotes where Hansen made alarmist predictions that failed miserably. Only in your jaded mind would you say they weren't predictions. You remind me of Bill Clinton when he was asked a question in a depostion and he replied, "it depends on the meaning of the word 'is.'"

You showed nothing but further claims.

The first claim was based on a newspaper article about Hansen did not quote him. It merely attributed a statement to him --a statement that I easily demonstrated was at odds with his work.

The second claim does the exact same thing. It cites a newspaper that attributes statements to Hansen but it isn't a quote. Such attributions cannot be accepted as fact --particularly since those statements conflict with Hansen's work.

Your link then goes on to claim that in J. HANSEN, I. FUNG, A. LACIS, D. RIND, S. LEBEDEFF, R. RUEDY, AND G. RUSSELL, %u201CGlobal Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, Journal of Geophysical Research, Atmospheres, 93, NO. D8, PAGES 9341-9364, AUGUST 20, 1988, p. 9346 Hansen claims "The 1 [deg]C level of warming is exceeded during the next few decades in both scenarios A and B; in scenario A that level of warming is reached in less than 20 years and in scenario B it is reached within the next 25 years." And in the same paper that Hansen claimed, "The computed temperature changes are sufficient to have a large impact on other parts of the biosphere. A warnting of 0.5[deg] C per decade implies typically a poleward shift of isotherms by 50 to 75 km per decade. This is an order of magnitude faster than the major climate shifts in the paleoclimate record, and faster than most plants and trees are thought to be capable of naturally nilgrating [Davis,1988]%u201D What your link does wrong is try to turn projections under various scenarios into "predictions"...while ignore the scenarios that didn't comport with the blogger's (and apparently your) agenda. In short, the blogger lied.

I stopped reading there since it's readily apparent that the blogger at your link is willing to lie, misrepresent, and deceive to try to twist reality into the shape that they emotionally or politically or otherwise need to make them feel better. I don't waste my time on such people whether they agree with me or not.

You still haven't "shown me the paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that ever claimed "snow as we know it" was going to end.", which was my challenge to you.

I suspect that you can't. (I'm pretty sure of it.)
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
576. Some1Has2BtheRookie
01:48 PM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Here are the CRU hacks predicting the end of snow. I can't believe you don't remember this hilarity. You really need to do some research before you get hysterical.

Link


Here is quote of Anthony Watts from the very same article that you cite: "At least they didn’t claim that UK snowfall was in a “death spiral”."

Seems that you are having a bit of a problem understanding what Anthony Watts said. That is completely understandable. Many of us have that exact same problem. ;-)
Member Since: Август 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4758
575. NeapolitanFan
12:49 PM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

No prediction by Hansen was produced. A single newspaper claims he said that it would be 2º, but that statement wasn't contained within quotation marks. Having had my own words mangled in the newspaper, I'm not inclined to accept a reporter's characterization as direct (or complete) quote --particularly concerning science.

It would be strange for Hansen to claim such a thing since he made several projections in 1981 using various sensitivities and none of them showed anything close to a 2º rise in 20 years.



Besides, you still haven't met the real challenge. Show me something in the peer-review literature, not a newspaper or a blog post. If you can't then you are wasting your own time.

But you are amusing me to no end. lol


No predictions? You truly are living in a denialist world. I showed you more than half a dozen quotes where Hansen made alarmist predictions that failed miserably. Only in your jaded mind would you say they weren't predictions. You remind me of Bill Clinton when he was asked a question in a depostion and he replied, "it depends on the meaning of the word 'is.'"
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
574. Birthmark
03:42 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Whining? The hacks at CRU repeatedly said that snow was over. Algore said it many times. I'll include Hansen's failed predictions. You must have selective memory.

Link

No prediction by Hansen was produced. A single newspaper claims he said that it would be 2º, but that statement wasn't contained within quotation marks. Having had my own words mangled in the newspaper, I'm not inclined to accept a reporter's characterization as direct (or complete) quote --particularly concerning science.

It would be strange for Hansen to claim such a thing since he made several projections in 1981 using various sensitivities and none of them showed anything close to a 2º rise in 20 years.



Besides, you still haven't met the real challenge. Show me something in the peer-review literature, not a newspaper or a blog post. If you can't then you are wasting your own time.

But you are amusing me to no end. lol
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
573. Birthmark
03:33 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Even our esteemed website owner predicted the end of snow. You must have been hiding with your head in the snow:

Link

As usual, a denialist quotes out of context. Here is the full quote: "There’s not going to be any more snow.” I exaggerate slightly, but I don’t recommend that anyone invest in the winter sports equipment industry this year."

So, you are wrong. Masters made a bit of a weather forecast for a single season, which he fully justified. He in no way implied that there would be no more snow.

Sheesh!
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
572. Birthmark
03:29 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Whining? The hacks at CRU repeatedly said that snow was over. Algore said it many times. I'll include Hansen's failed predictions. You must have selective memory.

Link

I asked you to "show me the paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that ever claimed 'snow as we know it' was going to end."

You have linked to a dishonest denialist blog which links to a popular press story.

You have failed to meet my challenge.

Btw, Al Gore has no published papers and is of no interest to me whatsoever. I've never read a word he wrote that wasn't the result of a denialist obsessing over him.

Now, can you meet my challenge and show me a even a single scientific paper that says "snow as we know it" was going to end?
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
571. NeapolitanFan
03:18 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Even our esteemed website owner predicted the end of snow. You must have been hiding with your head in the snow:

Link
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
570. NeapolitanFan
03:15 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Here are the CRU hacks predicting the end of snow. I can't believe you don't remember this hilarity. You really need to do some research before you get hysterical.

Link
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
569. NeapolitanFan
03:13 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:
Now this is going to be fun! lol


Wherever do you get off making pronouncements on what is or isn't science? Are you seriously claiming that Newton should have withdrawn F=ma because of a little problem with Mercury? That wouldn't be science. That would be perfectionism, which happily isn't science. Perfection belongs to religion and philosophy.


Dull, but correct. However, there is no piece of science that is correct by that standard. And there never can be unless we suddenly wake up one day omnipotent. We haven't thus far awakened in that state, and so we are left with nothing but the imperfect, though highly useful, theories of science.


Are you sure?





In over a decade? Gee, that's...not really relevant since it is unlikely that statistical significance will be reached in anything much under 20 years at current CO2 levels. (22 years is better since it is, on average, two complete solar cycles.) So, you are again spouting nonsense by insisting on a ten years (or twelve) statistically significant signal to be visible.

However, feel free to peruse this if you are interested in the real global warming signal.


Funny old thing about logic: It's only a parlor trick if you don't use facts. It is easy to see that your parlor trick above is mercifully free of the ravages of fact. Had you included facts such as the global warming signal is much smaller than the noise, you would reach a radically different conclusion logically. Instead, you attempted logic in a vacuum...with the predictably incorrect conclusion.


What predictions is it that you think aren't occurring? Do such predictions exist or are they products of your imagination? Trot some of them out here and let us examine these predictions.


It can cause the former and definitely causes the latter.


There were indeed papers that said warming would cause more hurricanes. Further research showed that that is probably not the case. That's why science is provisional.


Now, see? You're making junk up. You show me the paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that ever claimed "snow as we know it" was going to end.


What's ridiculous is your patent inability to produce any of these wrong predictions. Get specific and quit whining. Show me the wrong papers!


And again you make some weird claim that bears no relation to anything in science. Does honesty mean nothing to you?

I think I've covered your entire Gish Gallop with that. Seriously, why do you even try such nonsensical tactics?


Whining? The hacks at CRU repeatedly said that snow was over. Algore said it many times. I'll include Hansen's failed predictions. You must have selective memory.

Link
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
568. cacciato66
02:45 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Thanks for all the patience you show for deniers.

I was a statistician (now retired)working on issues of dendrochemistry in Taxodium distichum. Therefore I read a good deal of dendrochronology and actually presented some papers at meetings in the 1990's.

You're right on the mark as far as I can tell.

thanks again for your substantive responses.

Member Since: Август 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 3
567. drought
02:36 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
New Brunswick shatters weather records
Member Since: Март 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 114
566. drought
02:31 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Weather records continue to fall on P.E.I.
Member Since: Март 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 114
565. drought
02:24 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Record highs reached throughout Nova Scotia
Member Since: Март 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 114
564. Birthmark
02:15 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting Xandra:

But they're terribly sure what science isn't. To wit: Anything that they don't like.
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
563. Birthmark
02:11 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Now this is going to be fun! lol

Quoting NeapolitanFan:


If Newton's "law" had a problem, then it was Newton's "theory". It wasn't replicable similar to climate "science."

Wherever do you get off making pronouncements on what is or isn't science? Are you seriously claiming that Newton should have withdrawn F=ma because of a little problem with Mercury? That wouldn't be science. That would be perfectionism, which happily isn't science. Perfection belongs to religion and philosophy.

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
If it has a problem, it isn't correct.

Dull, but correct. However, there is no piece of science that is correct by that standard. And there never can be unless we suddenly wake up one day omnipotent. We haven't thus far awakened in that state, and so we are left with nothing but the imperfect, though highly useful, theories of science.

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Global warming models have never been even close to being true predictors of the future. None of the predictions of the doomsday scientists have been correct.

Are you sure?




Quoting NeapolitanFan:
CO2 is supposed to be the great driver of climate change. The global temperature hasn't increased in a statistically significant manner in over a decade, yet CO2 keeps increasing.

In over a decade? Gee, that's...not really relevant since it is unlikely that statistical significance will be reached in anything much under 20 years at current CO2 levels. (22 years is better since it is, on average, two complete solar cycles.) So, you are again spouting nonsense by insisting on a ten years (or twelve) statistically significant signal to be visible.

However, feel free to peruse this if you are interested in the real global warming signal.

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
To one based in logic, it would demonstrate that the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase (if a global temperature average is even measurable) is incorrect, but logic and physics are no longer applicable in this sort of climate sorcery.

Funny old thing about logic: It's only a parlor trick if you don't use facts. It is easy to see that your parlor trick above is mercifully free of the ravages of fact. Had you included facts such as the global warming signal is much smaller than the noise, you would reach a radically different conclusion logically. Instead, you attempted logic in a vacuum...with the predictably incorrect conclusion.

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Every time a "denier" shows these logical and scientific flaws propagated by the warmists, said warmists always have some excuse as to why their predictions aren't occurring.

What predictions is it that you think aren't occurring? Do such predictions exist or are they products of your imagination? Trot some of them out here and let us examine these predictions.

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Warm causes cold. Warm causes extreme weather.

It can cause the former and definitely causes the latter.

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Warming was supposed to cause more hurricanes, now it's fewer hurricanes.

There were indeed papers that said warming would cause more hurricanes. Further research showed that that is probably not the case. That's why science is provisional.

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Warming was supposed to end snow as we know it, but now it's causing more snow storms including the most snow in Alaska ever this past winter.

Now, see? You're making junk up. You show me the paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal that ever claimed "snow as we know it" was going to end.

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
It really gets pretty ridiculous when you go through the gamut of incorrect predictions.

What's ridiculous is your patent inability to produce any of these wrong predictions. Get specific and quit whining. Show me the wrong papers!

Quoting NeapolitanFan:
It would be almost laughable if it weren't threatening our very way of life and killing our economy with all of these new rules and regulations.

And again you make some weird claim that bears no relation to anything in science. Does honesty mean nothing to you?

I think I've covered your entire Gish Gallop with that. Seriously, why do you even try such nonsensical tactics?
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
562. Xandra
01:26 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Member Since: Ноември 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
561. Birthmark
01:24 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


I understand bogus data perfectly. Explain to me how we get dark reds in your charts above 80 degrees north when we have almost no data from that region. Don't talk down to me as if you are the expert. There are many scientists with much more understanding than you who totally disagree with you. That's what I mean about not agreeing on the data.

That meaning was neither contained nor implied in your previous post. You said, "The charts I posted show the exact opposite of NOAA's questionable data. When scientists can't even agree on the basic data, it ain't science, my friend."

I answered that adequately and reasonably.

So now you are galloping to another topic --in true denialist fashion. A skeptic would have accepted the explanation and incorporated into what they already knew, and adjusted their viewpoint accordingly.

So, your new claim is that there are "scientists... who totally disagree with you"; meaning me. So what? The scientists in the relevant fields agree with me (or, rather I agree with their scientific results) to the tune of 97% or 98%. I am also in agreement with virtually every scientific organization and National Scientific Academy on the planet.

The fact that there are engineers, doctors, guys with BAs, etc. who disagree isn't at all relevant, as their opinions, for the most part, carry no more scientific weight than mine. They aren't the first cranks to take on science, they won't be the last (probably). Science has a pretty good track record against the cranks. But side with the cranks if you like. It's your opinion, put where it makes the most sense to you.

Just don't try to pass off your opinion as science, unless you yourself want to be regarded as a crank. Again, your choice.
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
560. NeapolitanFan
12:43 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

Your comment betrays a perfect misunderstanding of what science is and what it does. Read this carefully: There is no proof, absolute or otherwise, in science. Proof, particularly of the absolute variety, is firmly in the province of philosophy or mathematics. And there are sound reasons for that. Let me give you a couple of examples why you are wrong.

Example 1 (Hypothetical): We say that the Sun provides virtually all of the energy arriving at Earth. How doe we know that is true beyond all doubt? The answer is, "we don't." It is simply the answer that makes the most sense and is the most consistent with the available evidence.

Example 2 (Historical): When Newton's "Law" was tested, it became readily apparent that there was a problem. It couldn't predict the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Newton's "Law" was accepted in spite of that deficiency, though, since it applied everywhere else that it could be tested. Therefore, it was useful --and still is. Einstein's Theory of gravity which supersedes Newton's "Law" does explain the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Even so, we know that Einstein's theory isn't perfect. You'll note in both cases the science was still accepted. That is true because they represent(ed) the best explanation with the available evidence.

The fact is, that to formulate an absolute proof of anything means that nothing more about that thing can be learned...ever. (The cleverer among you might see a little entropy problem, if nothing else.)

The word "proof" does get bandied about, even by scientists, but it is simply sloppy language on their part. What they mean is "X" (some experiment, information, etc.) is strongly consistent with "Y" (some hypothesis, theory, etc.) "Proof" is much shorter to say, which has certain benefits in a society addicted to 30-second sound bites. But "proof" is most definitely meant not in the way it is used in geometry, for example.

All knowledge in science is provisional. If it weren't, science would be no more useful than a coin flip (and probably much less useful) at explaining the state of things.

Science's big advantage over every other method of learning is its ability to use new information to refine its ideas --no matter how dear those ideas might be. Science isn't perfect. But it's darn good and darn useful.


And you should produce some "scientific proof" of...well, anything. Then we'll see who is laughing. (Hint: It will be me. Raucously.)

Sorry for the long post, but your misunderstanding is so fundamental and profound that I thought it best to explain why you are wrong at some length.


If Newton's "law" had a problem, then it was Newton's "theory". It wasn't replicable similar to climate "science." If it has a problem, it isn't correct. Global warming models have never been even close to being true predictors of the future. None of the predictions of the doomsday scientists have been correct. CO2 is supposed to be the great driver of climate change. The global temperature hasn't increased in a statistically significant manner in over a decade, yet CO2 keeps increasing. To one based in logic, it would demonstrate that the correlation between CO2 and temperature increase (if a global temperature average is even measurable) is incorrect, but logic and physics are no longer applicable in this sort of climate sorcery. Every time a "denier" shows these logical and scientific flaws propagated by the warmists, said warmists always have some excuse as to why their predictions aren't occurring. Warm causes cold. Warm causes extreme weather. Warming was supposed to cause more hurricanes, now it's fewer hurricanes. Warming was supposed to end snow as we know it, but now it's causing more snow storms including the most snow in Alaska ever this past winter. It really gets pretty ridiculous when you go through the gamut of incorrect predictions. It would be almost laughable if it weren't threatening our very way of life and killing our economy with all of these new rules and regulations.
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
559. NeapolitanFan
12:33 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

Apparently, you are unable to recognize science. If you possessed such an ability, you would realize that the "dot map" uses a 1971-2000 baseline, whereas, the map that you linked to uses a 1981-2010 baseline.

(And that's assuming your link's map is not doctored in some way, as all too often happens in denialist circles.)

Here's the GISS temperature anomaly map for February with a 1971 - 2000 baseline:


Here is the same map utilizing a 1981 - 2010 baseline:


So, your complaint that "scientists can't even agree on the basic data" is based on your lack of understanding rather than any meaningful discrepancy in the data.


I understand bogus data perfectly. Explain to me how we get dark reds in your charts above 80 degrees north when we have almost no data from that region. Don't talk down to me as if you are the expert. There are many scientists with much more understanding than you who totally disagree with you. That's what I mean about not agreeing on the data.
Member Since: Декември 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
558. drought
12:10 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
It's not difficult to prove AGW at all. We emit CO2 by using fossil-based carbon sources. CO2 has been proven to be a greenhouse gas due to its interactions with infrared radiation. Ergo we are causing AGW. Simple.
Member Since: Март 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 114
557. cyclonebuster
12:02 AM GMT на 23 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


The charts I posted show the exact opposite of NOAA's questionable data. When scientists can't even agree on the basic data, it ain't science, my friend.


Oh! You mean those





charts?
Member Since: Јануари 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20415
556. Birthmark
08:12 PM GMT на 22 Март, 2012
Quoting martinitony:


Your remarks are nonsense. A proof absolutely requires perfection.

Your comment betrays a perfect misunderstanding of what science is and what it does. Read this carefully: There is no proof, absolute or otherwise, in science. Proof, particularly of the absolute variety, is firmly in the province of philosophy or mathematics. And there are sound reasons for that. Let me give you a couple of examples why you are wrong.

Example 1 (Hypothetical): We say that the Sun provides virtually all of the energy arriving at Earth. How doe we know that is true beyond all doubt? The answer is, "we don't." It is simply the answer that makes the most sense and is the most consistent with the available evidence.

Example 2 (Historical): When Newton's "Law" was tested, it became readily apparent that there was a problem. It couldn't predict the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Newton's "Law" was accepted in spite of that deficiency, though, since it applied everywhere else that it could be tested. Therefore, it was useful --and still is. Einstein's Theory of gravity which supersedes Newton's "Law" does explain the precession of Mercury's perihelion. Even so, we know that Einstein's theory isn't perfect. You'll note in both cases the science was still accepted. That is true because they represent(ed) the best explanation with the available evidence.

The fact is, that to formulate an absolute proof of anything means that nothing more about that thing can be learned...ever. (The cleverer among you might see a little entropy problem, if nothing else.)

The word "proof" does get bandied about, even by scientists, but it is simply sloppy language on their part. What they mean is "X" (some experiment, information, etc.) is strongly consistent with "Y" (some hypothesis, theory, etc.) "Proof" is much shorter to say, which has certain benefits in a society addicted to 30-second sound bites. But "proof" is most definitely meant not in the way it is used in geometry, for example.

All knowledge in science is provisional. If it weren't, science would be no more useful than a coin flip (and probably much less useful) at explaining the state of things.

Science's big advantage over every other method of learning is its ability to use new information to refine its ideas --no matter how dear those ideas might be. Science isn't perfect. But it's darn good and darn useful.

Quoting martinitony:
"Seems to be"and "something very much like" are laughable as phrases that might be found in a scientific proof. You should stick to your graphs and other exhibits.

And you should produce some "scientific proof" of...well, anything. Then we'll see who is laughing. (Hint: It will be me. Raucously.)

Sorry for the long post, but your misunderstanding is so fundamental and profound that I thought it best to explain why you are wrong at some length.
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
555. martinitony
06:09 PM GMT на 22 Март, 2012
Quoting Birthmark:

Speaking of wrong statements, the above is absolutely wrong.

Based on what we know about the properties of CO2 and how those properties will react in the atmosphere under various circumstances, a series of predictions can be made. In fact, a series of predictions have been made.

These predictions have been reasonably successful. Not perfect, of course, but perfection isn't required.

So if the current warming is not largely attributable to CO2, then it is something very much like CO2. However, if the cause isn't largely CO2 then the cause must somehow cancel out what we know about CO2 whilst simultaneously mimicing the effects of CO2. That seems to be a pretty daunting task.

In any event, I think you and I both know which way Occam's Razor cuts on this one. ;)


Your remarks are nonsense. A proof absolutely requires perfection. "Seems to be"and "something very much like" are laughable as phrases that might be found in a scientific proof. You should stick to your graphs and other exhibits.
Member Since: Јули 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
554. Birthmark
04:20 PM GMT на 22 Март, 2012
Quoting martinitony:
It is currently very difficult to test the CO2 global warming hypothesis because the world would have to be the experiment. I am not trying to set up an impossible situation, but just having correlation is not proof.

Speaking of wrong statements, the above is absolutely wrong.

Based on what we know about the properties of CO2 and how those properties will react in the atmosphere under various circumstances, a series of predictions can be made. In fact, a series of predictions have been made.

These predictions have been reasonably successful. Not perfect, of course, but perfection isn't required.

So if the current warming is not largely attributable to CO2, then it is something very much like CO2. However, if the cause isn't largely CO2 then the cause must somehow cancel out what we know about CO2 whilst simultaneously mimicing the effects of CO2. That seems to be a pretty daunting task.

In any event, I think you and I both know which way Occam's Razor cuts on this one. ;)
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
553. martinitony
03:56 PM GMT на 22 Март, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


I can't beleive I'm replying.. but since I am stuck here for 10 mintues:

Your point about causation and correlation is well known and applies to anything. Stretching your point to cover the statistical well known correlations between evidence and global warming theory is simply the wrong use of the correlation/causation argument. Else, there is never causation and no theory is possible.

Second I referred to denialists as denialists ebcause i thought that was the PCI term. Call it whatever you want. Not interested.

Third, you have not answered any of the points above, namely what is the mechanism for all the melting ice and other myriad physical evidence of global warming.

Fourth, yes the earth has seen many swings and cycles. NONE have been this fast and NONE when the population was so internetworked and living at the edge of the ecosystem envelope.

Finally, so in the end, based on your rebuttal, I take it that you admit your post of the graphic and your prior arguments are void. (You have admitted that at least twice yourself if you go back and read your posts carefully.)

Now, I don't even lurk anymore, seeing as I can't resist answering.


I will only address this statement now.
" Else, there is never causation and no theory is possible."
This is a false statement. I don't mean that you are lying. I mean that you are wrong.
Here is an example. If I heat paper to 451 F it ignites and burns. I can prove that the act of doing this is the cause by running experiments. That is cause and effect.
Think. The reason we run experiments testing a hypotheses is typically because of correlation.We observe something that we believe may be a cause. Then we run experiments to test the hypothesis in order to prove that it wasn't just correlation but was function.
Scientists have sometimes gone years, generations and even centuries believing a hypothesis that was wrong because they were unable to test it.
It is currently very difficult to test the CO2 global warming hypothesis because the world would have to be the experiment. I am not trying to set up an impossible situation, but just having correlation is not proof.
Member Since: Јули 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
552. Birthmark
03:05 PM GMT на 22 Март, 2012
Quoting martinitony:
Therefore, make your arguments and answer the skeptics challenges without claims of denialism.



I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass unopposed. Climate change "skeptics" are not skeptics at all, with very, very few exceptions. A skeptic (in terms of science) is someone whose opinion is based on the available evidence. That is simply not the case with climate change "skeptics."

Instead, they are denialists. They deny the data (see above), they imply or assert a conspiracy, they assert causes that have already been eliminated by scientific evidence, they deny that it is even warming in complete defiance of reality. I can list what they do all day. In short, they deny anything that they can think of. When a specific denial is addressed, it is most often ignored or simply "nuh-uh'ed." That is not skepticism, that is simply nay-saying.

"Denialist" is a correct term for such people, though perhaps not the most polite.

I am a skeptic. A few years ago in a message board debate, I was of the opinion that the climate was warming, but that the reasons weren't known with any confidence. Someone for whom I had some respect advised me to look at the actual science. I did just that over a period of several years. I found that the science did indeed support the notion that human activity, primarily CO2 emissions, was behind the current warming.

You see what I did there? I changed my position based upon the available evidence. That, sir, is skepticism.
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
551. Birthmark
02:45 PM GMT на 22 Март, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


The charts I posted show the exact opposite of NOAA's questionable data. When scientists can't even agree on the basic data, it ain't science, my friend.

Apparently, you are unable to recognize science. If you possessed such an ability, you would realize that the "dot map" uses a 1971-2000 baseline, whereas, the map that you linked to uses a 1981-2010 baseline.

(And that's assuming your link's map is not doctored in some way, as all too often happens in denialist circles.)

Here's the GISS temperature anomaly map for February with a 1971 - 2000 baseline:


Here is the same map utilizing a 1981 - 2010 baseline:


So, your complaint that "scientists can't even agree on the basic data" is based on your lack of understanding rather than any meaningful discrepancy in the data.
Member Since: Октомври 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
550. greentortuloni
02:41 PM GMT на 22 Март, 2012
Quoting martinitony:


Patterns, correlation and regression.

The Earth has been cooling for billions of years.

The Earth has been warming for Hundreds of years.

The Earth has been stable, temperature wise, for about a dozen years.

The above statements, I think you will agree are all true.

I walk down the street. I observe cracks in the sidewalk. The sun is shining. Cracks in the sidewalk cause the sun to shine.(From my statistics professor, 1967) The cracks are still there and the sun still shines. Confirmation from me today.

Okay, I think you get my drift. If you are honest you will not take exception to the above statements to discredit what I am about to say, because what's above is not really at dispute. There is no straw man here. There is just a simple argument that perhaps the warming trend has no relation (or very little relation) in fact to anything that man is doing but rather that the ups, downs and flat areas are part of a much bigger picture that we can't or won't see.

I have learned that correlation is not proof of anything. You need to determine regression which means a function. Yes, it is possible that ice can be melting in one place and not another and that in total the system is warming, but it is also possible that the opposite is true, a cooling system with ice melting in some part of it.

Using terms such as denialist to discredit what I have just said only suggests to me that the argument being presented by that person is inferior. There are far too many PHDs skeptical of AGW for me to blindly accept many of the arguments presented so far. The denialist will claim that these skeptics are paid shills. I know that is not true and I know far more money is pouring into the "green" promotors from this government than the energy industry.

Therefore, make your arguments and answer the skeptics challenges without claims of denialism.




I can't beleive I'm replying.. but since I am stuck here for 10 mintues:

Your point about causation and correlation is well known and applies to anything. Stretching your point to cover the statistical well known correlations between evidence and global warming theory is simply the wrong use of the correlation/causation argument. Else, there is never causation and no theory is possible.

Second I referred to denialists as denialists ebcause i thought that was the PCI term. Call it whatever you want. Not interested.

Third, you have not answered any of the points above, namely what is the mechanism for all the melting ice and other myriad physical evidence of global warming.

Fourth, yes the earth has seen many swings and cycles. NONE have been this fast and NONE when the population was so internetworked and living at the edge of the ecosystem envelope.

Finally, so in the end, based on your rebuttal, I take it that you admit your post of the graphic and your prior arguments are void. (You have admitted that at least twice yourself if you go back and read your posts carefully.)

Now, I don't even lurk anymore, seeing as I can't resist answering.
Member Since: Јуни 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220

Viewing: 600 - 550

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
50 °F
Делумно облачно