|
|
|
|
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/26/2009 9:34:06 AM | Burp,
Yeah, I did read the reasoning, but I suppose I did indeed miss the point of "oh no people are going to be upset so let's bury our heads in the sand and embrace ignorance."
I read the reasoning..I just disagree with it. I find fault with a logic of:
If we prove A, then Group B will be upset and
If we prove B, then Group A will be upset.
Therefore we shouldn't study anything.
you can't please all the people all the time...so some people will be upset...whooptidoo. They'll get over..the truth is worth it.
Once upon a time people believed in phlogiston, alchemy, phrenology, triple helixed DNA, bleeding the sick, etc. we got past those things and it wasn't via remaining ignorant. I just can't buy the idea that a group of climatologists, or their antogonists, are going to make life unbearable if they are disproven. | |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/26/2009 10:18:00 AM | "If we prove A, then Group B will be upset and
If we prove B, then Group A will be upset.
Therefore we shouldn't study anything."
You're on the right track, so far, with the sole exception that Group B and Group A are the one and same group. (People.)
Now, onto the next step. Try to define A and B, by which I mean, please try to word the propositions of A and B.
Once you mastered that step, then after that, please see the reasons how we could prove A and B. Please read the two paragraphs that treat the subject of A and B.
(It's not climatologists that would make life unbearable, but our knowledge of impending doom and the knowledge that we can do nothing to stop the doom from coming closer.) | |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/26/2009 12:39:39 PM | Burp,
what you originaly posted is below:
"So what if we conclusively learn that global climate change caused overwhelmingly by some non-anthropoe-whatever causes? Then what? A whole bunch of people will lose their footing on a well-serving guilt, their footing on a well-serving feeling of righteousness such as can be described by "THOSE DAMMED INDUSTRIALISTS ARE DESTROYING THE EARTH!!!", their footing if their ability to keep other people in a state of feeling guilty and thus easy to manipulate is taken away from them.
Aside from that, if man has no input, no role in the climate change, then very likely it's the case that it is also not in our, humanity's, power, to stop the process of change.
So I think it's a dangerous thing to prove this. A lot of people will be awfully mad and scared.
And if the conclusion is conclusive, and points at man as the guilty party in turning up the thermostat? Then we will be really angry. Industrialized countries will be required to shut down most of their operations. But almost all operations of industrialized countries keep us fed, not only in our countries but in others as well. Transportation stops--cities starve. Production of goods stops -- workers starve. Legal actions and political debate stop (to eliminate a lot of hot air from entering the atmosphere) -- lawlessness and mayham erupts.
So I think it's a dangerous thing to prove this. A lot of people will be awfully mad and scared."
seems to me you are saying if it turns out that Climate change isn't happening or has no anthropogenic component, then the Climatologists will be mad and scared. AND you are also saying that if we do find evidence of anthropenic contributions to climate change that the idustrial world will grind to a halt.
OK firstly, if the claimtologists are all wet...big deal. Secondly, I don't think it necessarily follows that industrial activity will grind to a halt. It'l like your arguing that if a person doesn't quite feel right they shouldn't go to the doctor because they might get bad news, and if there's nothing wrong with them they've wasted money and worried their families unduly.
It's just too absurd. You are free to embrace ignorance all you like, I will side with knowledge.
I mean you are actually arguing that we just ignore the climate change issue because hey we might upset climatologists to the point of catastrophe and on the flip side, we might learn that we're doomed. You totally discount another much more probable outcome - that we'll be able to better understand excatly to what extent we are affecting climate an then perhaps what we can do about it.
Sorry Bud..but remaining willfully ignorant requires a more eloquent explanation than you've provided...and in this case is an untenable position when it comes to persuading me to otherwise. | |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/26/2009 2:50:41 PM | To Burp and Scots
There is a third scenario: that climatologists will be linked with the likes of Al Gore and those who impose a carbon tax (as the previous poster mentioned a lot of people have distaste for) and then they will discover that CO2 is not the only cause in global warming. The repercussi0n of that will be the public's complete distrust in the scientific method and the possible underfunding of environmental science because of their outcries.
Hopefully this will unravel without people eating crow and without scientists taking the blow for the media hype and overly zealous post-politicians. | |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/26/2009 5:18:24 PM |
The repercussi0n of that will be the public's complete distrust in the scientific method and the possible underfunding of environmental science because of their outcries.
This can only happen if minds are closed and the science is "settled" say by a vote of UN bureaucrats labeled as scientists instead of open minded discussion by those well beyond professional climate observers, the publish or parish crowd, and Hollywood elite between rehab sessions. We have already seen human instigated environmental destruction from the CO2 global warming activism so any respect from some of us has already been damaged. Efforts to distance the scientific community from the leader of this movement, who has received the Nobel prize and Hollywood acclaim for his actions, ring more hollow than "tobacco" scientists.
To the general public, climatologists are weathermen. We hope they can advise us about the weather tomorrow but we don't really count on it. All that is seen now are efforts to expand government and taxes while restricting freedom in the name of Al Gore, the guru of global warming. From what I have seen, I'm not so generous as the public at large. I have seen NASA in self destruction in a quest to promote fear to get funding. Although I'm all for its scientific quest, I can no longer support its funding and will lobby accordingly with the congressmen I know well. There are grand missions NASA could shoot for but instead, it promotes fear to fund its bureaucracy. | |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/26/2009 7:08:10 PM | | This is a great point. The earth is heating up. But in fact, other planets are heating up more rapdily than our planet. But, while this is true, what gets lost in the debate is the fact that reducing polutants is intrinsically a good thing. Carbon Monoxide and other pollutants do cause damage. While we may be unclear on the amount or long term impact, it would benefit us to reduce the impact of these chemicals by reducing their quantities. | |
|
| Consequences of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/26/2009 8:14:26 PM | NS Lass,
Call me an optimist, but I'd refuse to let a black eye given to some scientists cloud all of the advances we've seen from the scientific method since its application in human history. I;d wager that the only distrust of the scientific method would come chiefly from those who avoided science in the first place. At the end of the day, do you really think most folks...including scientists would abandon the scientific method? Sorry...that just seems a bit absurd to me. What would we use in lieu of scientific study?
There's upmteen possibilities, but none are deleterious enough while being probable for me to advocate ignorance.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Holy hell.
Perhaps what you mean to say is that the unscientific public might be apt to be more distrustful of scientists and their motives....it seems however that those sentiments exist already. I just draw a blank when I think of a viable alternative to science. I mean, will we resort to reading tea leaves and religion to explain our natural world? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/26/2009 9:53:18 PM | Just a question is the climate changing? Yes always has since day one. According to some there have been 5 ice ages and humans were not around for the first 4. So in order for and ice age to go away, does it not have to get warmer? And since we were not here to warm things up, hmmm could it have been a natural occurrence?
Is anyone disputing that when the so called dinosaurs roamed the earth it was much warmer than it is now?
I have also read that a single volcano erupting put out more carbon dioxide than we have since the stone age. Can you say Mount St Helen.
The cold hard fact is all your using is a computer model. If they worked we would always know what the weather was going to be. The fact is you can only guess about tomorrow never mind ten years down the road. To many variables have to be taken into account.
If you want to give up modern technology and go live in a cave. Be my guest. But if you try to drag me along you are in for a fight. Since you are posting on here I see you haven't done that yet. Ever here the phase lead by example? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/27/2009 6:51:18 AM | If there is any change in the "climate" on Mars or Venus, it may have nothing to do with Earth. Venus is covered with clouds so its hotter than Mercury. Mars has no clouds and only a CO2 atmosphere so it quite cold with dry ice poles. The clouds of Venus trap heat while the CO2 of Mars does not. Earth is dominated by water and only has partial cloud cover. The CO2 in the atmosphere has trended down since life began to where we are today. Plants, and the animals that depend on them, have had to adapt to this reality.
In the mean time, Earth has had its ice ages and warm periods pretty much cyclic in nature but also appearing to have several cycles at different frequencies. The dominant atmospheric cycle could be either ocean currents driven by polar ice melt or solar emissions of particles causing a global increases and decreases in cloud cover based on their density. Being as CO2 has been trending down for very long time, much more so than the ice age periods, to me CO2 is a non-starter. My own extensive experience in the IR spectrum agrees with this observation. Solar particulates would likely have little effect on Venus or Mars. The far out gas giants are a completely different ball game. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/27/2009 3:12:45 PM |
Perhaps what you mean to say is that the unscientific public might be apt to be more distrustful of scientists and their motives....it seems however that those sentiments exist already. I just draw a blank when I think of a viable alternative to science. I mean, will we resort to reading tea leaves and religion to explain our natural world?
Yes, this is pretty much what I meant; however, to be more specific
Al Gore received a Nobel prize for his An Inconvenient Truth. He scared people into believing, among other things, that unless we change our ways sea levels will rise 6 m, destroying Florida and coastal areas and we will then plunge into an ice age. People are now being quite conscientious; they are recycling more, reducing paper usage, composting, not idling their cars as much, etc.
My fear is that someone will discover that the major contributing factor to climate change is not CO2, which will result in people reverting back to their old, polluting ways and, worse still, governments will not invest in green technologies, so companies will also be able to go back to their polluting ways. If that happens, then I would bet that the public and their elected officials will insist on a lot more concrete evidence before they begin to listen to environomentalists, regardless of whether they are correct, because they will have been disillusioned by the climate change fiasco. If it is one, of course. I'm pretty convinced there is more than one factor causing climate change, but CO2 is probably still one of the main ones. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/27/2009 5:45:12 PM | A portion of the general population cares about the environment because advocates like Al Gore and David Suzuki are telling them that producing CO2 through energy use is a very bad thing. If that turns out to be untrue, then there will be a period where average people are disenchanted and will not listen to these people who are telling them to change their ways to help preserve nature and the environment. Some people rely on the media and famous figures to tell them what's true. Obviously the administration of an unnecessary carbon tax will also have fueled anger and distrust. But nonscience types who care about minimizing their CO2 outputs normally agree with that tax. They are the ones who will be disenchanted if it turns out to be for not.
To clarify, I agree that knowing the truth and using the scientific method are essential; however, in this case, climate change stories have been taken over by media and those who exaggerate to push people into action. Scientists simply report their findings; they're not the ones going around saying the sky is falling, but they might be painted with the same paintbrush as those who have and politicians elected by the people might be less likely to fund their research.
And, sorry, I've said it before and I'll say it again: continuous human population growth is not a good thing, unless you're talking about the economy. We will eventually run out of resources and we will reduce the number of species on the planet because of competition for space.
So, please, define "these people". You might just be referring to me. | |
|
| Recent report on climate disruption, re. The Science of
Posted: 1/27/2009 6:05:56 PM | Editing correction: Add source elaboration to a summary paragraph.
I posted 1/23/2009 6:41 :53 PM:
Undisturbed Western forests have been having increasing mortality over recent decades, across major species, across elevations, and across tree age. Representative sample plots are surveyed every several years. Annual temperature has increased about 1F in fifty years. Mortality appears due to increased drought strain and increased predation by insect and pathogen activity that has been increasing with warmer winters and summers.[USGS, with UW and UO; "Tree Mortality", Science, 23 Jan. '09]
Erratum: "... with warmer winters and summers. [This is my short-short summary, for this POF thread.] [USGS {with the UW and UO}; "Tree Mortality", Science, 23 Jan. '09]"
Note this was not a formatted, highlighted quote, nor were quotation marks used. This was my unofficial, draft executive summary of the article in the latest issue of Science. (Do those posters who complain hold themselves to the same standards as those of their complaint?) "Annual temperature" is shorthand for purposes of lay discussion in this thread. The actual particulars are well described in the article. For this thread, "annual temperature" refers to a defined, technical composite of thermal energy per year, allowing comparison from year to year, allowing revealing trends over time.
Note also that this report is on at least fifty years of professional data, adding to more extensive bodies of evidence, and also accepted by peer scientists sceptical of some conclusions of the report. The scientific validity of the observed trends in the data are not in question within the realms of logic, reason, and the scientific method.
______
Air temperature
[…]
Averages of daily maximum and minimum temperature for a single month for many years give mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures for that month. The average of these values is the mean monthly temperature, while their difference is the mean daily range for that month. Monthly means, averaged through the year, give the mean annual temperature; the mean annual range is the difference between the hottest and coldest mean monthly values. The hottest and coldest temperatures in a month are the monthly extremes; their averages over a period of years give the mean monthly maximum and minimum (used extensively in Canada), while the absolute extremes for the month (or year) are the hottest and coldest temperatures ever observed. The interdiurnal range or variability for a month is the average of the successive differences, regardless of sign, in daily temperatures. [McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology (2002, 2005).]
This is just one quick example, just one paragraph. Terms used are described further in the quoted article.
.
You may recall, as proper or common nouns, rational or real numbers, Truth or Beauty of subatomic particles have clear, specific meanings, so defined terms are common to particular discourse. (As you know, too, "average" is "mean", in precision distinct from colloquial usage.) Suggestion: find how to use search engines, and make a few diverse good ones your friends.  Find how to use a library card well. 
--RM
| |
|
| Recent report on climate disruption, re. The Science of
Posted: 1/27/2009 6:27:08 PM | This winter has felt like a really bad one and I know it's colder than usual so I was doing a search on historical climate data to see just how much colder it was. Turns out, this is the coldest winter in over a decade for us. Then I ran across all these articles coming from reputable scientists on global cooling. Here is just one:
http://www.almanac.com/timeline/coolclimate.php
"Doug Hathaway, a solar physicist at NASA, believes that solar activity has diminished and will continue to do so for decades. In 2006, he predicted, based on observations of the slowing of the plasma flow on the Sun, that cycle 25 could be the quietest—thus, the coolest—in centuries. Also in that year, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of research for the Russian Academy of Sciences, issued an imminent mini-ice age warning based on expectations of a quieter Sun over the next 50 years. Our long-range forecasts also point toward cooling conditions."
I think there are enough scientists out there suggesting different opinions regarding global warming and global cooling that it's obvious no one really knows for sure. But if you listen to the media, it's a fact. So before you predict an Apocalypse due to global warming, I think you should do a little research on Global Cooling just to see what other theories are out there.
The thing is that pollution is bad for our environment so for environmentalists to promote CO2 reduction is a good thing and you can't help but wonder if well meaning environmental scientists are erring on the side of caution because the reduction has a positive outcome regardless of its actual impacts on Global Warming. Having Global Warming as an extra fear to tag on to the promotion of their beliefs certainly isn't harming their cause when it does have an impact (its the significance of the impact that I think is still in debate). I am for the reduction of CO2 but my vote is still out on weather Global warming is due to us or we are going through a natural cycle and entering a cooling phase. | |
|
| Convergence about climate disruption, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/27/2009 7:06:53 PM | Mr. Hermit, Group A and Group B [Msg. 279] refer to your post, 1/25/2009 10:00:23 AM, Msg. 267. The propositions and the definitions of the groups would be yours.
<div class='quote'>would make life unbearable, but our knowledge of impending doom and the knowledge that we can do nothing to stop the doom from coming closer.wrote Hermit (previously Sweetly) 1/26/2009 10:18 :00 AM
Hasn't this already been covered? : : Whatever the causes (only for purposes of discussion here), regarding
<div class='quote'>understand[ing] the impacts of our actions on the natural world and [planning] our societies accordingly
<div class='quote'>We, humanity, have done so before, and have failed or succeeded before. […]
Today, more than ever in our history, we have both choice and knowledge. Have a good read with Collapse: How societies choose to fail or succeed, by Jared Diamond (2005), or [cf. quoted post 1/25/2009 1:13 :10 PM].
"The result is a convergence of opinion rarely seen in a profession where attacking each other's work is part of the process. [...]
'With the unprecedented study devoted to climate change, the odds that this consensus is wrong are slim,' [science historian Spencer Weart, director of the Center for History of Physics] added.
'The fact that so many scientists think it's likely a truck is heading for us means that the last thing we want to do is close our eyes and lie down in the road.'"
[ http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20051009&slug=globewarm11 ]
NSLass, Scots, Hermit, LBP, and you all,
we, particularly well-informed citizens in participatory democracies, whether parliamentary or not, have further options than various hysterias--or somnolent denials.
.
This thread has approaching three hundred posts. Rather than becoming circular, may we proceed? Discussion of consequences, of the depth and breadth of climate departures could be good continuations.
--RM
| |
|
| Climate Change is the topic
Posted: 1/27/2009 11:18:54 PM | LoL. False accusation, ad hominem attack and deflections is all one gets once the fallacies in denial claims are pointed out (yet again).
Don’t think so? Have a look at these two threads to see if this assertion, that some just post up the SAME debunked fallacies over and over again, isn’t accurate for “coats of paint” or “back in the Jurassic days”, etc…
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts10593991.aspx
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9117203.aspx
.
.
.
Some specific answers…
What some speciously misrepresent in order to justify a false accusation of hypocrisy…
Msg 278…
we actively avoid passing judgment Yet we have these snippets: Purely an obfuscation........counterfeit dénouement........repeat the same fallacies
What The Collective actually said IN CONTEXT…
“…Contrary to what some falsely accuse, we actively avoid passing judgment and we do not coerce the occasionally NECESSARY one upon others…”
LoL. What this demonstrates is the “quoting out of context” that deniers resort to when desperately trying to find fault in their opposition (when they cannot find fault in the argument).
Furthermore, if one were restricted to not even qualifying supposition, it would severely curtail expression of opinion. In this way we show how deniers actually attempt to silence those that point out their errors. Weak and too easy to counter (yes, that would be a judgment based on how The Collective found this rebuttal. RoFl).
What some attempt to identify as “name calling”…
Msg 278…
In other forms of internet bullying: many will resort to name-calling and ridiculing the critic. And here we go: These detractors ........not unlike how some deniers
…isn’t the “name-calling” of the particularly adolescent type of jeering that indicates a self-realized losing position.
Nope. It has been explained on numerous occasions that “name calling” has to do with irrelevant and irreverent monikers (you know, like calling someone, “trekie” which has NOTHING to do with the discussion). In distinction from this, the descriptors of detractor and denier are apt in that it is the very behaviour demonstrated by some ON THIS TOPIC. We are sure one is only being insincerely unaware of this distinction (Yep. That’s a necessary qualification as opposed to denigration on someone’s member name).
What some try to present as more evidence of hypocrisy…
Msg 278…
From the inspiration of the poster's identity:
Resistance is Futile
Followed by trademark arrogance and denial of his own complicity:
We merely point out illogic (and the bullying that so frequently accompanies it) when we so desire (such is free will).
Note the "drone" character devoid of free will Borg identifies with.
…is clearly just another weak attempt at ad hominem attack. As mentioned before, the main indicator of ad hominem is in how irrelevant or non-sequitur the accusations are. In this case, the critic attempts to equate the name one has chosen as a screen tag to be indicative of one’s view of the topic, or even one’s real behaviour. This is a tenuous at best, and in this case is entirely without merit. It is as ludicrous to state that someone with a member tag of “zombie” is actually not alive, and is arguing the topic based on that premise.
One uses a discussion on climate science like a pageantry parade by waving one’s resume in one hand and beating one’s chest with the other (that IS an accurate description), and those that do not resort to vicarious trust by “credentials” are the “arrogant” ones? The irony is exceeded only by the absurdity. Has one anymore specious ad hominem to be debunked along with the junk science?
Personal attack is but irrelevant residue once specious misinformation has been washed away. No one is forced to resort to that. Some wisely disengage. Some foolishly believe frothing rage is equal adversary to clear reason. It is a personal choice to embark on the latter course and prove to a widening audience of one’s inability to defend their position.
Msg 278…
they will be openly hostile to anyone who sheds light on the subject (we see it here all the time.)
And Borg is not openly hostile and discounting of open discussion?
Lol. This rhetorical is based on a false premise. Please indicate (in CONTEXT now) where The Collective has been even less than courteous (much less openly hostile). Inability to do so renders this a clearly false character assessment. On the contrary, it is not difficult to see who resorts to continuously and irrelevantly bringing in their opponent’s avatar as if it is part of the discussion. It is not difficult to see who actually resorts to calling anyone who agrees with climate science “religious” or just “chanting”. Nope. The Collective does not resort to these derisions. All can conclude who does that on a regular basis.
Msg 278…
The discussion of alternate mechanisms and exploring reasons for misleading observations is science!
This is a misrepresentation of what some have been doing. It is a straw man argument. No one has argued that discussing alternate mechanisms is NOT science. However, let us clearly state, AGAIN, that speciously re-iterating the same fallacies over and over again (especially when one as been directly informed of the flaws) is NOT “science”. It is an agenda of misinformation.
Pretending this isn’t happening? Check out message 228 on the following thread for the very same “exploring reasons” (“coats of paint” in this case)…
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/10593991datingPostpage10.aspx
Has it been DIRECTLY refuted? Yep. Search that same page for the string “campaign of AD NAUSEAM misinformation”.
Has it been disingenuously suggested that it “hasn’t” been refuted? LMAO. Yep. Check out the same page for message 234 and read the last sentence.
While science is all about actively questioning the data, methodology and premises, it is NOT about repeating the same old fallacies as if it hasn’t been shown to be false.
It is not that easy to obscure that REAL record of insincerity any more.
Msg 278…
To Borg, science is a vote.
Nope. The collective has never said or implied anything of the sort. This is purely a false accusation and likely meant as derision. Let us remind some of what we actually just said in regards to “votes”…
The B0rg, msg 254…
“’Nothing more than opinion’ is purposely confusing the poll and the subject matter. Of course the poll is an opinion by its very nature. However, the science that the poll refers to is NOT merely opinion.”
“The point of the opinion poll is to determine if people consider the interpretations to be adequate. They necessarily ask climate scientists since that is their area of expertise.”
Msg 278…
mindless follows of a “faith”. Yet Borg says the science is resolved by vote no less.
ROFLmAo. Please indicate (in context) where The B0rg has said that the science itself is resolved by a vote. Again, we were very careful in explaining that…
The B0rg, msg 254…
“’Nothing more than opinion’ is purposely confusing the poll and the subject matter. Of course the poll is an opinion by its very nature. However, the science that the poll refers to is NOT merely opinion.”
Either one is truly challenged in reading comprehension, or one is speciously pretending to not understand this distinction.
The B0rg, msg 254…
There is only debate because some choose to ignore the evidence. EVIDENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF CO2 CAUSES. Borg appears to be ignoring the evidence of prehistoric climate change and a past with far higher CO2 levels than we have today. To understand the motive for such blind faith, one has to explore motives yet Borg dismisses such exploration. What more evidence of a religion is needed?
LoL. This is another misrepresentation. No one, especially none of The Collective, has stated or eluded that, without further qualification, “evidence of climate change is evidence of CO2 causes”.
As far as the prehistoric climate change fallacy… Nope. It appears that we did indeed shed light on before…
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/10593991datingPostpage10.aspx
Search for the string, “In regards to the “there was more CO2 in the past” deflection…” in message 231 and one will find a detailed rebuttal. People should note too that this rebuttal was in response to the poster of message 228 on that thread. Perhaps that poster truly does have a short attention span.
Like we have demonstrated, “pretending” that a fallacy has not been debunked and proceeding to post it up again is clear indication of an agenda to misinform.
Msg 278…
discussion into politics Accompanied by denial of Brog's very reason to post: It is not a requirement of The Collective to convince..... Unlike Borg, I have been open about my qualifications to form my own opinions and analysis of the topic. I do not often resort to citing some shaman of a religious-political movement as "proof" like Borg does but I actually form my own opinions and express them. In short, I am not a drone in some collective. I have argued repeatedly that people should think for themselves. Borg has done the opposite:
It is clear who consistently directs the conversation into politics (as it is a way to deflect from the inability to support their argument scientifically) and it is NOT The Collective. We do not have a requirement to convince those who refuse to be convinced. That is the context of the quotations you have so minced as to render their meaning purposely disambiguated.
As far as qualifications, you have indicated them only as a convenient substitute to providing explanation for your wild claims (such as “CO2 has a cooling effect”). As far as openness in supplying qualifications, one has not revealed them as readily as one uses them as an intimidation tactic. You were SPECIFICALLY asked to reveal these boasted credentials in more detail…
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/10593991datingPostpage8.aspx
See message 184.
At that point it became apparent that the particulars were not as forthcoming as the boast. If the proof is less visible than the boast, it is just “saber rattling”.
Even if revealed, as far as any one else’s qualification, they are irrelevant unless one is either a bona fide climate scientist, or, they are used specifically as a form of support (as you have on numerous occasion.) If the assertions supported are proven faulty, one really shouldn’t attach their “credentials to them… lest they be dragged down as well.
In contrast, The B0rg has not relied on its “credentials” in lieu of transparency. The B0rg relies on the accountability of the arguments it presents. We have gone over this before. If you wish, you can assume that we are at a grade-school dropout level.
Please provide some evidence as to how and when The Collective has argued that people should not think for themselves. Do not confuse this with “people shouldn’t have to perform the extensive battery of climate tests and calculations themselves”. Without delegation of such tasks to experts is willfully asking for ridiculous justification. Inability to do so is standalone proof that such allegations are absolutely false.
Msg 278…
Resistance is Futile I have extensive experience in the measurement and analysis of time varying and cyclic real world parameters where my understanding of science is not up for a vote but must prove itself in producing results. Borg prefers a vote.
Such “extensive” experience would be relevant if one understood when and where the Nyquist criteria can be mitigated by corroboration through other analyses. Speciously bringing it in and defending it by trying to justify via “experience” rather than reasoning is invalid regardless of how many times one tries this ploy.
Working for years in a piano store will make one very familiar with pianos, but it does not make one a virtuoso. Only the tune they can actually seduce out of those 88 keys is proof of musical ability. Merely pounding on some keys at maximum volume at every available opportunity is just noise.
As far as the “vote”, that is clearly a misrepresentation that we have covered above (and many times before).
Msg 278…
Then there is this: were doing so because they were being rewarded (in cash or other forms of payment) to lie about it yet this is the very accusation made about tobacco science! It has been pointed out that massive fortunes are to be made from carbon credit trading and fortunes are already being made from fear mongering movies such as that from Al Gore. This accompanies the motive of political power. Many scientists live in a publish or parish environment and political correctness steers grants to those who "witness their faith" and denounce the unfaithful with demeaning and inaccurate labels such as "denier."
Yes. Propaganda for profit is the very same thing that those who speciously deny the correlation between smoking and cancer.
One can suggest climate science is influenced by “political power” motives, but as yet NO PROOF whatsoever has been forthcoming as to how these scientists are profiteering (we are not talking about AL GORE or any other politician). This challenge has been presented to you before, yet you have not provided any supporting exhibits. In absolute contrast is how easy it is to provide a clear link between purveyors of junk science (like OISM) and political funding.
What part of “or other forms of payment” is one not understanding (or pretending not to understand)? Reward is often not in cash. For example, one who perceives that academia has unjustly not held them in esteem in the past will be rewarded if they can vengefully create dissent or a false sense of amateurish conduct in the scientific community. The reward is handsome even if not a single penny is gained when the sole purpose is to sling mud upon those one holds in contempt. We see this in many of those who run Astroturf sites. Sometimes the audience doesn’t even have to look that far when that mud slides off and only soils the hands of the one who throws it.
Msg 278…
Much of my career has been in energy conservation as well as the measurement and analysis patents I have generated. I also work throughout the IR spectrum with both IR enhanced vision systems and deep IR thermal imaging.
What relevance does this have if one ignores the temperature and pressure gradient of the atmosphere in order to recite the same fallacy of “coats of paint” over and over again? FLIR systems (MWIR or LWIR) usually don’t need to take the GHG effect into consideration in order for them to work (we are sure one is aware of this if thermography is part of their resume).
Msg 278…
What qualifications does Borg have other than his identifying with a cancelled fiction TV show? Maybe it's because he read some internet published paper he like to cite. Yup, there's some facts we can count on along with the hair growth and male enhancement drugs.
What relevance does this have if The B0rg has not used “credentials” as support for illogical arguments? We have maintained integrity on the merits of our arguments. Those who use their “credentials” rarely do it because they have such merit in their argument (yes, we and many others have shown the fallacies in “CO2 has a cooling effect” or other offerings in the past).
As far as equating the peer-reviewed documentation provided by The Collective in the past to that of late night infomercial quackery, you have yet to provide any support. Considering that both “CO2 has a cooling effect” and “coats of paint” have been debunked based on serious flaws, it more likely that they are deserving of a 2am airing on your local TV station. But have whatever opinion you like.
Msg 278…
I have been active in environmental causes for over 4 decades. It's not some petroleum industry I am arguing for but science.
As we have not specifically accused you of being a crony for the petroleum industry this is merely a misrepresentation. We have already indicated one of many other forms of “payment” one can accrue from falsely debasing climate science. It is left up to the audience to ascertain what form of payment you believe you are accruing.
Msg 278…
Borg prefers blind faith in bureaucrats labeled as "scientists" as "resistance is futile". When the basis of policy is erroneous science, the environment suffers.
One accuses, but unless one can substantiate such claim by showing that authors of papers offered up by The Collective as scientific evidence are actually politicians in lab coats, this is purely a conjured accusation. Don’t even think of referring to the Grist Mill as “scientific” support. The Collective used that paper as support of claims of bias from the typical denier hero. We refer to scientific documents for the scientific corroboration. There are serious doubts one will actually provide any proof of such transgression.
Msg 278…
Note the ethanol mandates that is killing sea life and resulting in deforestation to grow fuel crops while burning oil to do it. The "profits" from such activity are driven by tax code, not free markets. The again, Borgs says "resistance is futile" so one should not question the wisdom of government.
This deflection into the detriments of mitigation strategies has been done before. None of it speaks to the science, and is the very diversion into “politics” one is coyly pretending to have no part off. Such is the case, when false science like “CO2 has a cooling effect” or “coats of paint” are posted ad nauseam in an attempt to denigrate climate science. Once these are fallacies are exposed, detractors will resort to personal attack (since they really have NO position of merit.)
.
.
.
LoL. False accusation, ad hominem attack and deflections is all one gets once the fallacies in denial claims are pointed out (yet again).
Don’t think so? Have a look at these two threads to see if this assertion, that some just post up the SAME debunked fallacies over and over again, isn’t accurate for “coats of paint” or “back in the Jurassic days”, etc…
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts10593991.aspx
http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts9117203.aspx
You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
(So Ask and you shall receive; Deceive and you shall be so tasked; Challenge and you will be soundly refuted... yet again. LoL)
| |
|
| Climate Change is the topic
Posted: 1/27/2009 11:43:42 PM | As a person that spent several years looking for fraud and misrepresentaion in laboratory data, i could care less what others wish to accept as "true enough to panic".
I rely on my own understanding of what drives studies and what drives those that quote them. Anecdotal data ,gleaned from several real instances of bullsh1t conclusions drawn from poorly defined evidence isnt going to change the mind of anyone on either side of this argument..This is a political argument..acting like it really involves science is just one more way of attempting to win the pissing contest.
The need for not fouling our own nest is undeniable as is the need to use our resources in our own best interest , short and long term.. we should stick to that discussion and stop attempting to make what needs to be as rational as possible, one more excuse to emote. | |
|
| The science of climate disruption, and anthropogenic contribution
Posted: 1/28/2009 7:07:03 AM |
Just a question is the climate changing? Yes always wrote BuryCaesar 1/26/2009 9:53 :18 PM
This is a straw man argument. The issue with respect to the science of GW topic is twofold: One, that the rate of contemporary climate change is both significant and signally unusual in planet history. Second, that a (if not the) significant contributing factor is the consequences of a range of human activities over recent centuries. So far, a better model accounting for the contemporary differences with respect to previous climate change has not yet been shown.
I have also read that a single volcano erupting put out more carbon dioxide than we have since the stone age. Can you say Mount St Helen [sic].
The cold hard fact is all your using is a computer model. If they worked we would always know what the weather was going to be.
This is a red herring. What the weather is going to be is meteorology. The two sciences are distinct. "[A]ll you['re] using" is humorous. No science works that way. Scientists today have the resolution to make increasingly accurate, limited assessments of climate, but the high resolution required for weather beyond about 24H around urban areas where data is rich, is not (yet) available [program to understand and predict, http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/cliff.php]. Regarding "always know", apart form mathematics, no science makes any such promise.
Understanding general terminology would be up to participants, particularly here in this thread, since that is so readily available.
Assertions of fact in the absence of verifiable references are essentially hearsay or anecdote.
--RM
| |
|
| Overviews re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/28/2009 7:23:34 AM | I've found About.com is a pretty good source of compendia of general knowledge--a good starting point, rather like Wikipedia--for providing clarity and an overview in order to become more focused in seeking further. Like Wikipedia, it tends to be pretty neutral, presenting multiple sides where such diversity exists.
About about.com - http://www.aboutmediakit.com/about/ and http://www.about.com/gi/pages/promise.htm
Here's an overview, for beginning:
"The Truth About Global Warming"
Tuesday October 11, 2005
On Sunday, the Seattle Times devoted a mind-boggling number of column inches (3+ pages, no ads) to its lead story, "The Truth About Global Warming". The author, Sandi Doughton, was prompted to research the story after attending a forum for science writers in 2004, where "several speakers involved with climate science complained that skeptics of global warming get equal treatment in news coverage, as if scientists are hopelessly divided on the question. The speakers insisted they are not."
Doughton decided to explore the claim. [more] http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2005/10/11/the-truth-about-global-warming.htm
"The Truth About Global Warming" - http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=globewarm11&date=20051009
forum for science writers - http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=fancher09&date=20051009
Even better for beginning understanding most any topic imaginable is Wikipedia.
Wikipedia has a well-crafted overview of the global warming topic, with numerous related articles. The main article has extensive notes and references, with further readings and external links as well. WikiNews and WikiBooks have related information.
"Global warming" is a featured article; it (or a previous version) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. The article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. The article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations. [wikipedia.org Talk:Global_warming]
The article has been refined since 2001 [ibid]. Since the Wikipedia community is necessarily computer-savvy, many members do tend toward Libertarian (not a generally tree-hugging or big supervisory perspective); further--fundamentally--the strict neutrality of Wikipedia articles is conscientiously enforced. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias [wikipedia.org Wikipedia:NPOV].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#Economic_and_political_debate
--RM
| |
|
| |
| |
| Overviews re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/29/2009 4:48:46 PM | Organizations that support the fact of global warming
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
National Research Council (US)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Quaternary Association
Geological Society of America
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
Organizations with noncommittal statements:
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists
Dissenting opinion:
Michael Savage
(With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate)
Case closed. Global warming is a fact. | |
|
| Overviews re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/29/2009 5:48:45 PM | | To claim that all of the above organizations are part of a vast conspiracy is absurd. To claim that they are all run by morons is equally absurd. | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 12:14:45 AM | The article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations. [Posted 1/28/2009 7:23 :34 AM]
The mentions were in news stories assessing the quality of Wikipedia articles.
Certainly not most, but occasional yet recurrent posts on this, as well as other topics in forums.POF Science/Philosophy, clearly suggest that some posters do not have very clear, basic understanding of a topic under discussion.
For further clarification, note the second word in the following:
[F]or beginning understanding most any topic imaginable is Wikipedia. [emphasis edited]
Britannica could equivalently be consulted--at $1,500 for a bound set or $60/yr for home 'net access.
[…] further--fundamentally--the strict neutrality of Wikipedia articles is conscientiously enforced. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias [wikipedia.org Wikipedia:NPOV]. It means editors citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics. When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, a cool-down period, talk, and dispute resolution is conducted.[ibid]
This is relevant to the topic of "The Science of Global Warming" because as with all critical thinking, faculty engagement is recommended when evaluating--whether information or sources.
Eliminating bias from articles--especially political content--is one of journalism’s oldest challenges.
Evaluating Wikipedia as a beginning resource should be treated no differently.
(Again, note the word beginning: Wikipedia is explicitly not intended to be an original source nor itself a source for citation--it's a place to start.)
For beginners, an encyclopedia is a good place to begin: by reading, and then, with Wikipedia, looking_up_ some references.
Wikipedia is currently the most popular[3] general reference work on the Internet.[8][9][10]
[…] Wikipedia's reliability and accuracy are also an issue.[13][…][14][Nature] Scholarly work suggests that vandalism is generally short-lived.[15][16] [Further, citations and quality sources are required.]
[en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
Collaborative editing: accuracy and trust
[…] [Article dated 29 Aug. '04; research has continued apace. Accuracy and trust are also keys to productive discourse, such as on this Science of Global Warming thread.]
Do a little research about Wikipedia itself, how it works, and how the power of Wikipedia is the fact that it is edited--but by anyone else using Wikipedia? There’s just something that seems to freak people out about Wikipedia, when they can’t fathom the idea that “the masses” could produce something of value by simply being able to correct each other, allowing them to build something much more beneficial and much more useful than an expensive encyclopedia edited by just a few people.
In 2002, Wikipedia was criticized because it couldn’t scale and have in-depth articles. Turns out that more was put down than expected, surpassing the Britannica.
The quality of Wikipedia articles, at the very least, at a moment in time are better than they were before and will improve over time.[Mayfield] (Sounds like science.)
The assertion and views of "red flag" concern may be unexamined assumptions of traditional vs. collective authority:
In fact, on very heated topics, you can see the back and forth negotiation of wordings by people with different views on a topic until, in many cases, a neutral and mutually agreeable wording is put in place and all parties are satisfied. Traditional authority is gained through a combination of talent, hard work and politics. Wikipedia and many open source projects gain their authority through the collective scrutiny of thousands of people. Although it depends a bit on the field, the question is whether something is more likely to be true coming from a source whose resume sounds authoritative or a source that has been viewed by hundreds of thousands of people (with the ability to comment) and has survived. (Further, Wikipedia requires adherence to standards for quality of sources, and requires citations.) [ibid]
[Emphases added]
Controversial articles have edit restrictions; immediate 'bots as well as administrators police vandalism.
The Global Warming article has been undergoing refinement since 2001, and like many controversial topics having Wikipedia articles, it has undergone intense scrutiny, attracting diverse as well as credentialled editing.
Over the past few years, a series of measures aimed at reducing the threat of vandalism and boosting public confidence in Wikipedia have been developed. For example, though anyone may edit, only edits made by indentified trusted users are instantly implemented, or a page certified as vandalism-free by trusted editors is linked. For edits that are more subtly inaccurate, perhaps because they have been designed to promote an agenda, other tools rate and protect quality per defined, public standards. Logs are public.[Giles]
Experts have fewer reasons to be concerned with the accuracy of Wikipedia than do non-experts. "It may be the case that non-experts are more cynical about information outside of their field and the difference comes from a natural reaction to rate unfamiliar articles as being less credible", explained Thomas Chesney, a Lecturer in Information Systems at the Nottingham University Business School.[Anderson]
"Every obvious criticism of Wikipedia happens all the time, and we deal with it--trolls, vandals, POV pushers […] We deal with this in the normal course of events, and the site remains good enough to use", says David Gerard, a volunteer media contact for Wikipedia in the UK.
Stephen Bury, head of the European and American Collection at the British Library says, "just because it's in an encyclopedia (free, web or printed) doesn't mean it's true. Ask for evidence ... and contribute."[PC Pro]
So, in all, Wikipedia is one good place to start for beginners--and lurkers--on the POF Science/Philosphy fora. Try looking up "critical thinking" : )
--RM
______
"Britannica response". Nature, 23 Mar. '06
http://www.nature.com/press_releases/Britannica_response.pdf
Ross Mayfield. "Wikipedia Reputation and the Wemedia Project" many.corante.com, 29 Aug. '04. http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/08/29/wikipedia_reputation_and_the_wemedia_project.php
Jim Giles. "Wikipedia 2.0 - Now with Added Trust", New Scientist, 20 Sep. '07, 2622:28-29.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526226.200-wikipedia-20--now-with-added-trust.html?full=true
Nate Anderson. "Experts rate Wikipedia's accuracy higher than non-experts" arstechnica.com 27 Nov. '06 http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/11/8296.ars
review of
"An empirical examination of Wikipedia’s credibility" by Thomas Chesney
First Monday, volume 11, number 11 (Nov. '06),
URL: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/index.html
"Wikipedia Uncovered". PC Pro magazine, Aug. '07, p.136
.
| |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 9:20:30 AM | "This kind of consensus among all these clubs and associations can't be wrong"
chainsawmiller
So 95% of the world's scientists are part of an evil CONSPIRACY or just stupid? You sir are a conspiracy nut.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
WOW !!! They have even infected the heart of the scientific establishment! I bet the moon men are behind it!
 | |
|
| Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 9:33:56 AM | "This issue can't be muddied by reason with this kind of consensus, no way ! "
chainsawmiller
Sure we can "debate" global warming. We can also debate if the earth goes around the sun. I have no problem taking on simple science questions. | |
|
|
| Page 12 of 17
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 |
|
Home
login 
