[tuzo29]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...?wpmp_tp=1

[Pretzel Logic]

It's your quickness to say another's viewpoint is clearly and objectively wrong and complete unwillingness to admit you are wrong that bothers me. No condescension or malice needed for that. Just arrogance. I don't see the point in attempting to debate someone who won't even address the gaps I point out in his logic.

Last try -- since my efforts at kindness were received with these attacks, let me just respond to your attacks with logic, in the hopes of maybe reaching some sort of understanding. (It's worth a shot!)

You ENTERED this debate with the following statement. This was the tone you set right at the outset:

One comment about the global warming discussion:
Saying carbon dioxide emissions has no effect on global temperatures is like saying loose monetary policy has no effect on global inflation. Sure we don't know when or how much but to deny the effect is just sticking your head in the sand.

"Just sticking your head in the sand" is to say "you are denying reality" -- essentially, "all who disagree are backwards, and possibly morons." It further implies that you claim the corner on Truth. I'm sorry, but the statement above struck me as arrogant. And those were the very first words out of you mouth. You offered no evidence to back up this arrogant (and judgemental) proclamation, though.

So, my reply was to ignore your personal attack and instead ask you to define "the effect" -- a reasonable and rational response. From there, I went on to lay out my case for why BOTH sides are speculating, and why I felt that the debate was being conducted emotionally on a global level. I, as you like to say, "pointed out the gaps in your logic." But I received no response to my request for information, nor did you ever address "the gaps in your logic."

INSTEAD, the next post you made was revealing -- because it clearly illustrated that you were merely speculating. I know this was speculation, because it was backed up by "facts" that were objectively verifiable, yet wholly incorrect.

If 10% of scientists don't believe something, that doesn't mean it's bad science. Remember there's the other 90% (tens of thousands of scientists) who are worth paying attention to. (I think it's probably much higher than 90% who agree that man-made client change is a real problem, but let's just say 90% to be conservative.)

So I responded with ACTUAL FACTS in the form of surveys, petitions, and a deeper examination of the numbers put forth by AGP leaders. The ACTUAL FACTS demonstrated that your speculation was "clearly and objectively wrong," as you say. (Responding to speculation with facts represents pure arrogance, I know!)

That might lead one to question the speculation they had arrived at by using wrong numbers. Instead it led to an emotional response wherein you seemed to feel like I was attacking YOU personally. Again, I was NEVER attacking you personally, and never once did I make a statement on par with YOUR opening personal attack that anyone who disagreed "had their head in the sand."

So let's go back and review, and see how it ties to the personal attack quoted at the very top:

1. I responded to your speculations with facts and logic, and continued to do so. You continued to respond with new speculation, and continued to not "even address the gaps I point out in (your) logic".

2. Nor were you ever once willing to see how the facts rebutting your speculations, and might suggest a reexamination of those speculations -- some people might call that "a complete unwillingness to admit you are wrong."

3. YOU kept trying to take the debate more and more personal (starting with your very first post, and continuing with condescending attitudes that amounted to: "Oh, tell me why I'm wrong, oh great and smart guy."). I kept trying to keep things civil and kind, but you swatted me back every time. Dude, sorry, but THAT is "arrogance."


As far as I can tell, in actuality, your attacks (below) are self-directed.

It's your quickness to say another's viewpoint is clearly and objectively wrong and complete unwillingness to admit you are wrong that bothers me. No condescension or malice needed for that. Just arrogance. I don't see the point in attempting to debate someone who won't even address the gaps I point out in his logic.

Jung called this "the shadow" self: you are projecting your own (deeper) attitudes onto me.

I hope I've make it clear that I do NOT share them.

[tuzo29]

OK. Let's turn to logic rather than emotion. What upset me is that I pointed out data several times and you never acknowledged the data. It's hard to be ignored and not get upset. I'm sorry if my "head in the sand" comment was offensive. I was just saying (poorly) that the greenhouse effect is not debatable. The magnitude of the effect is what scientists are trying to figure out. When you add insulation, things end up warmer (in a cold environment, like the earth's environment which is outer space).

Now on to the data. You cited an AMS survey to say there's a consensus against AGW, but the data you cited doesn't line up that way. Please see the data from that AMS survey (http://bit.ly/25nAvu0). I pointed to this data that shows a consensus that meteorologists think global warming is a problem (67% think it's all or mostly man-made, 14% who think GW is half man-made and half natural and only 13% who think it's mostly or all natural). That was one of your facts and it pointed to the converse of what you were saying. I wanted you to address this, but you ignored it. Feel free to address it now.

Then you pointed to 31,400 scientists who have signed a petition saying they believe global warming is not an issue that we need to worry about. The implication was that there's a huge number who disagree with the "consensus" and therefore it's not a consensus. I wanted you to explain how this big number was significant rather than just throwing it out there and saying, "See! There's no consensus for AGW". It requires considering the total number of people would might sign the petition. I took some time to think about this and came up with the following analysis. I did this before I stated the 90% number in my earlier post. I wasn't just repeating what I had heard. I was doing some math and didn't figure I had to show my work. No one else has shown their work in this debate yet, but here goes. There are about 250,000 to 400,000 scientists (science, math and engineering majors) who graduate from college each year (http://1.usa.gov/1ROWNug). It was more like 250,000 in the 70s and now it is closer to 400,000. Let's assume people live 40 years after college. Given US life expectancies and average graduation ages, this is conservative. Using 250,000 for all 40 years is also conservative. 40 * 250,000 = 10 million. I figure only a fraction of these people know about the petition, but I think its reasonable to bet that fraction is higher among those who agree with the petition. If we assume there are 1 million of the 10 million who would sign the petition that's means 9 million or 90% wouldn't. I figured that assuming 3% of those willing to sign actually did is a conservative number. That's where I got the 90%. Not from some survey that you think it flawed.

Speaking of surveys, I did a google search to see if I could find other survey data that wasn't on a pro- or anti- AGW site. Here's what I found from Pew Research. (http://pewrsr.ch/1Jh2RMX). If you dig into, you see that groups that are more knowledgable are more likely to think climate change is man-made. Of course, surveys aren't the key finding. That's just a barometer of opinion (educated opinion for the AAAS survey of scientists, but still just opinion). What does the actual research and data suggest? Well I googled Steven Schwartz paper on heat capacity and global temperate change to see if there was a rebuttal that was based on data and analysis. It turns out that Schwartz simplified the problem of the heat sink for the earth a bit too much and when you apply a more accurate model you get different results (greater temperature rise). See (http://1.usa.gov/1P7BggB) and (http://bit.ly/1sNNcz5). Another item I came across this week as I was educating myself about this topic was a paperpublished in Nature (one of the two toughest journals to get into, Science being the other one) that explains the slow down in the rise in global temperatures over the last decade using a model that takes into account the decadal La Nina cooling effect in the Pacific Ocean. When this is incorporated into their model, the effect from the greenhouse hasn't diminished at all, there has just been cooling due to local weather patterns. When this weather pattern reverts back to its mean, the expectation is we will go right back to the upward trajectory we have fallen out of, meaning faster temperature rise in the next decade to get back on track.

I know there is uncertainty in this area of science. Climate scientists don't have a perfect model for the complex system, but they do have good models that they are trying to improve all the time. Right now, the best estimates are for continued warming due to the continued increase in atmospheric CO2 and the most likely scenario is not good in 50 to 100 years. Humans and the earth will adapt and survive, but at what cost? I don't think it's wise to focus on the data that says things are going to be fine. Especially when there are lots of papers and articles that point to less rosy scenarios. Understanding those scenarios is crucial. Ignoring them is hazardous to future generation's health.

I actually didn't think global warming was a big deal 10 years ago. I thought Al Gore was a kook and all the doomsday prophesies were crazy. But then at some point I started to really listen to climatologists and read what they were saying and try to filter out the political noise (which is why I wasn't listening in the first place) and realized that the scientists who were studying climate change were not crazy nut jobs, but scientist like me who wanted to understand the world better. Then I realized most all of them were saying the same thing. Finally, considering the physics of energy absorption at different wavelengths means that we are creating a one-way blanket up in the atmosphere that allows the sun's energy (visible and UV light) to come in and then traps the earth's thermal energy (lower frequency energy that CO2 absorbs much more of). This is going to warm the planet up. It's just a question of how much. Hopefully there is some secondary effect that will minimize the pain future generations might have, but it seems like a poor choice to assume that will happen just because the system is complex and there's no perfect model for it (there never will be, we have to deal with what we know today). Please try to ignore the politics of the issue and consider the science. There's not a conspiracy among climate scientists to use AGW as a means to make government bigger. Government can get bigger all on it own.

I'm not sure I've addressed all your concerns and questions, but there's some data for you to sift through. Please don't respond with lots of words (like OBJECTIVE and FACTS and BALANCE) and no analysis. I'm not a sheep following Al Gore because the media told me to. That's what I've heard plenty of in the last few days and I'm tired of it and it most definitely won't change my mind. Your best and most useful argument so far was sending the Steven Schwartz paper. The rebuttals I read reduced the impact of that data point, but it was still very useful.

[Pretzel Logic]

OK. Let's turn to logic rather than emotion. What upset me is that I pointed out data several times and you never acknowledged the data. It's hard to be ignored and not get upset. I'm sorry if my "head in the sand" comment was offensive. I was just saying (poorly) that the greenhouse effect is not debatable. The magnitude of the effect is what scientists are trying to figure out. When you add insulation, things end up warmer (in a cold environment, like the earth's environment which is outer space).

I'm glad we are able to return to a semblance of reasonable debate. I'm doing birthday stuff on and off today, but will try to return to address your points in turn as I have time.

My apologies again for my role in any of our misunderstandings.

[tuzo29]

Just a follow up as I have continued to investigate this topic this week. Looking at the thread from a few years ago there were several posts about research by some Danish scientists on how cosmic rays may lead to more clouds. I believe this is a possible cause for global temperature change, although it's far from a strong theory yet. When our solar system is in one part of the galaxy that has more cosmic rays, then we are going to have more clouds and colder weather. When the sun goes through its 11-year cycle of solar flares and that affects the cosmic rays that reach Earth, we get more or less cloud cover. OK, plausible theory. Have we seen a secular trend in cosmic rays in recent decades to explain the warming of our planet? According to NOAA data, we have not (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/cosmicrays.html). If not, then there must be something else going on. Sure, cosmic rays can change our global temperature over millions (or billions) of years, but over 5 decades? In the past 50 years we haven't moved to another part of the galaxy. Also, there's been no measurably significant change in the solar activity to point to either (other than the 11-year cyclical changes as shown in the NOAA data that don't trend like global temperatures have over the last century). There are lots of things in the universe that can impact global temperature, but we are looking for something that can explain the warming over 100 years or less. Cosmic rays doesn't fit for that.

[Tenson]

This advice should be heeded in the climate debate as well :
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-04...th-matters

[alx13]

I'm gonna throw in my uneducated opinion here.

I admit I haven't taken the time to do the research. I stumbled upon some research here and there and used my rational judgement to form a (partial) opinion.

That being said, regardless of the topic, it always bothers me when one side of a debate says "this is established. There is consensus, so it's not up for discussion anymore.". This seems to be the case for the "man-made global warming" debate. Which I think is plain wrong! I'm glad PL used Galileo Galilei example, because it sounds a bit like the same kind of talk the Inquisition used when talking about God in the previous century.. You don't believe in God? You are a barbarian, a Devil worshiper, you should be killed... It seems to me that if one side has irrefutable evidence that they are correct, they shouldn't fear debate. They can easily dismiss it with their evidence.

2nd point I'd like to bring is that, in my view, there is just not enough understanding about the workings of our Planet to draw such drastic conclusions (like man is responsible for the majority of the Earth's warming) and to state on top that "it is not up for debate". I think it very well should be up for debate! I don't think I should be called an ignorant or a "don't give a sh*tter" or egoistic, or stuff like that if I state that the arguments about man-made global warming do not convince me. Our Planet went through a whole Ice Age, killed entire species (dinosaurs) and then warmed up again ALL ON ITS OWN! It was here long before humans inhabited it and I'd bet that going from an Ice Age into the climate it has now is a significant warming. How come it did that without humans and now, all of a sudden, in only 50 years (which is nothing vs. our Planet's age) humans managed to claim the majority of the warming effect? Doesn't that sound a bit like arrogance?

And now about CO2 emissions... The Earth releases huge quantities of CO2 on its own. I'm thinking about forest fires and volcano eruptions to name just 2.. How much CO2 is released through those types of events? I'd be curious to compare that vs. what humans release...

I think the Earth has a bigger self-regulating capacity than we give it credit for. That doesn't mean we should do whatever we want without caring, but I think a balanced approach is best. Imposing idiotic and crazy rules about car emissions which force car manufacturers to fake tests (see VW scandal and apparently now also other brands are discovered) is not a good way to proceed. The insanity about this goes even further... apparently everyone is so focused on how much a car pollutes, that the famous Prius, which was the first hybrid with low emissions, apparently used a very polluting technology for being produced... which was the equivalent of about 10-15 years of a normal car emissions... Of course everyone rushed to buy the Prius to "save the planet", when it was actually the same damn thing.

Bottom line for me: until the "global warming" crowd starts changing their attitude and bring some evidence backing up their doomist claims, I will be against extreme measures. I will recycle, because it's easy and it feels right to re-use limited resources. I will not waste electricity or water. But I will not give up on using the car and take the train or bus because "it's saving the planet". For all I know it might have little to no effect...

Now if you want to talk a real threat, let's talk about the population time bomb.. Don't even get me started of that one

[Pretzel Logic]

Just a follow up as I have continued to investigate this topic this week. Looking at the thread from a few years ago there were several posts about research by some Danish scientists on how cosmic rays may lead to more clouds. I believe this is a possible cause for global temperature change, although it's far from a strong theory yet. When our solar system is in one part of the galaxy that has more cosmic rays, then we are going to have more clouds and colder weather. When the sun goes through its 11-year cycle of solar flares and that affects the cosmic rays that reach Earth, we get more or less cloud cover. OK, plausible theory. Have we seen a secular trend in cosmic rays in recent decades to explain the warming of our planet? According to NOAA data, we have not (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/cosmicrays.html). If not, then there must be something else going on. Sure, cosmic rays can change our global temperature over millions (or billions) of years, but over 5 decades? In the past 50 years we haven't moved to another part of the galaxy. Also, there's been no measurably significant change in the solar activity to point to either (other than the 11-year cyclical changes as shown in the NOAA data that don't trend like global temperatures have over the last century). There are lots of things in the universe that can impact global temperature, but we are looking for something that can explain the warming over 100 years or less. Cosmic rays doesn't fit for that.

Just wanted to let you know that I've been pretty busy for the last few days -- and I don't want to give any quick replies to your prior post (since we know how well THAT approach worked out!) -- but I'm expecting to have more free time later this week.

Regarding the past 50 to 100 years, though -- the reason I have trouble reading too much into recent trends is that the earth's 50-year, 100-year, 1000-year, 10,000-year, million-year, (etc.) cycles are another area where we don't really seem to have enough concrete data to go beyond educated guesses as to what temperature is "supposed" to be right now. So who can really say for certain that temperatures over the last 100 years weren't/aren't exactly what they were supposed to be, naturally? Please note that I'm NOT saying "current temperatures are most definitely natural" -- I'm just saying "we don't really know for certain if they are or aren't natural, so we should probably keep an open mind to all possibilities until there is concrete proof to rule out any particular possibility."

[Pretzel Logic]

That being said, regardless of the topic, it always bothers me when one side of a debate says "this is established. There is consensus, so it's not up for discussion anymore."

...It seems to me that if one side has irrefutable evidence that they are correct, they shouldn't fear debate. They can easily dismiss it with their evidence.

Yep. The fact that there is even any ROOM for "consensus" in and of itself indicates that the science is NOT "settled." Established facts don't need a "consensus." Does anyone look at consensus arguments when trying to figure out if the earth is round? Or if gravity exists? Or if the sun is really, really hot?

The very fact that we're even talking about consensus means that we absolutely NEED to continue to allow open debate. Climatology is still in its infancy -- pretending it has more answers than it does is deluded, arrogant, and counterproductive to its own advancement.

The current environment for global warming debate in both the science AND the political community would be more suited to a barroom argument about "which football team is better" than it is for the advancement of science, for crying out loud. A whole lot of chest-beating, threats, and loud, boisterous opinions do NOT make those opinions suddenly become "undisputed facts."

I maintain that if someone is really, truly, and genuinely concerned about the earth's future, then they need to recognize that the only way we're ever going to get to the truth of the matter is to allow science to advance the way science always does: by testing various hypotheses and weighing those against the data. NOT by mocking and silencing any hypothesis that goes against the party line.

After all, many of science's greatest discoveries were initially mocked as outrageous, impossible, and stupid by the "consensus" establishment. This is, of course, not to say that all non-consensus arguments are automatically correct, but they must at least be examined. Not dismissed out of hand. Especially not in a science that is still struggling to understand the basics of itself, the way climatology is.

[alx13]

I'm just saying "we don't really know for certain if they are or aren't natural, so we should probably keep an open mind to all possibilities until there is concrete proof to rule out any particular possibility."

I share that point of view completely!

The problem is made worse by the politicians throwing in their own agendas. See the advancement of the "green" parties in Europe. So it is in their interest to state (or better said outright lie through their teeth) that man is responsible and everyone has to do this or that. That way, they promote their image as the "caring", "planet saving" generous people which fight to save us from impeding doom... nice story, but nothing more than bs, as in the article mentioned above by Tenson. They know jack squat about global warming. But talk like they do...

[Pretzel Logic]

Yep. The fact that there is even any ROOM for "consensus" in and of itself indicates that the science is NOT "settled." Established facts don't need a "consensus." Does anyone look at consensus arguments when trying to figure out if the earth is round? Or if gravity exists? Or if the sun is really, really hot?

The very fact that we're even talking about consensus means that we absolutely NEED to continue to allow open debate. Climatology is still in its infancy -- pretending it has more answers than it does is deluded, arrogant, and counterproductive to its own advancement.

The current environment for global warming debate in both the science AND the political community would be more suited to a barroom argument about "which football team is better" than it is for the advancement of science, for crying out loud. A whole lot of chest-beating, threats, and loud, boisterous opinions do NOT make those opinions suddenly become "undisputed facts."

I maintain that if someone is really, truly, and genuinely concerned about the earth's future, then they need to recognize that the only way we're ever going to get to the truth of the matter is to allow science to advance the way science always does: by testing various hypothesis and weighing those against the data. NOT by mocking and silencing any hypothesis that goes against the party line.

After all, many of science's greatest discoveries were initially mocked as outrageous, impossible, and stupid by the "consensus" establishment. This is, of course, not to say that all non-consensus arguments are automatically correct, but they must at least be examined. Not dismissed out of hand. Especially not in a science that is still struggling to understand the basics of itself, the way climatology is.

"Theories have four stages of acceptance:
i) this is worthless nonsense;
ii) this is an interesting, but perverse, point of view.
iii) this is true but quite unimportant.
iv) I always said so."

- J.B.S. Haldane

[Pretzel Logic]

Here's one that's tough to write off: James Lovelock was once one of the leading voices arguing that man-made global warming was destroying the planet (incidentally, this is the same guy who discovered CFC's and their link to the ozone layer -- arguably a pretty important discovery from an independent scientist), and in 2007, he was predicting incredible catastrophe:

At the leading edge of climate pessimism, the prognoses were frankly apocalyptic. "Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic," predicted James Lovelock, a renowned environmental scientist.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/p...e=fullpage

That's about as extreme, dire, and alarmist as it gets. Well, a few years later, this once-staunch proponent reversed his stance (although he still has concerns -- but to go from "billions will die" to "I made a mistake." and "we don't know" is difficult and meaningful. He has entirely redacted portions of his earlier books.). And the end does contain an explanation of the predicament that government scientists are in (essentially, that they have no option BUT to try and "prove' man-made global warming):

Lovelock pointed to Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and Tim Flannery’s “The Weather Makers” as other examples of “alarmist” forecasts of the future…”The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added…Asked if he was now a climate skeptic, Lovelock told msnbc.com: “It depends what you mean by a skeptic. I’m not a denier.” He said human-caused carbon dioxide emissions were driving an increase in the global temperature, but added that the effect of the oceans was not well enough understood and could have a key role. “It (the sea) could make all the difference between a hot age and an ice age,” he said. ‘I made a mistake’ As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/04/23/a...z4AmrYffiK

Can't get to the original MSNBC story, but here's another site with some additional quotes: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/b...ate-alarm/

Same scientist: ‘Whenever UN puts its finger in it seems to become a mess’
‘The green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion’

http://www.climatedepot.com/2012/06/15/o...z4Ams9chqB

[Pretzel Logic]

Climate economist Richard Toll has a provocative op-ed in today’s Financial Times titled “Bogus prophesies of doom will not fix the climate.” Last week, Tol accused the IPCC of being too alarmist about global warming and asked to have his name withdrawn from its recently-released Working Group II report (WG2) on climate change impacts.

Public discourse on climate change would be much improved if every discussion — for example, Secy. of State John Kerry’s climate speech in Jakarta, Indonesia — began with a reading of Tol’s opening paragraph:

"Humans are a tough and adaptable species. People live on the equator and in the Arctic, in the desert and in the rainforest. We survived ice ages with primitive technologies. The idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable."

http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/04/01/...chard-tol/

[Pretzel Logic]

OK. Let's turn to logic rather than emotion. What upset me is that I pointed out data several times and you never acknowledged the data. It's hard to be ignored and not get upset. I'm sorry if my "head in the sand" comment was offensive. I was just saying (poorly) that the greenhouse effect is not debatable. The magnitude of the effect is what scientists are trying to figure out. When you add insulation, things end up warmer (in a cold environment, like the earth's environment which is outer space).

I agree that the greenhouse effect itself is undebatable -- it's one of the things that makes our planet livable, and it comes from various different gasses (for example, water vapor is a major greenhouse gas). However, it may be important to note that the greenhouse effect is not something man has created, it's a natural function of our atmosphere, and it's the reason half our planet doesn't drop to -166 degrees at night. So, it's not really a bad thing of itself, per se.

To me, the relevant debate is whether man's activities are increasing the greenhouse effect -- specifically in a way that could be dangerous. In a way, I believe we're saying the exact same thing in this regard. The only meaningful difference (that I can see) is that you are operating from the assumption that there is going to be "X magnitude of increase from man," which implies a presupposition that man's activities are most definitely warming the planet to some degree or other; whereas I do not accept that presupposition -- although (and this is where things seem to have gotten confused) I do not dismiss it out of hand, either. I simply believe we do not have enough true scientific understanding, or long-term data, to even form concrete presuppositions.

Forgive me for a slight tangent, but one of the things my dad taught me when I was young was to question our presuppositions -- to question those things that we have accepted without question. Our presuppositions form the foundation of all logic that follows, so if they contain even the SLIGHTEST error, then every single thing that follows will be built on error, and that error is thus magnified a hundred times. If we start with a faulty presupposition, then we end up with a faulty conclusion. Thus, for logic to function, we have to be MOST careful at the beginning of things. That's how I'm approaching this subject, and why I'm not willing to give any logical ground away to assumptions.

I'm not doing this out of stubbornness, arrogance, or anything of the sort. I'm doing this because it's the only way I know how to confine things to the bounds of both a logical and a factual framework.

To wrap this point up: I think we can both agree that climatologists have a limited understanding of how climate works.

Where we diverge seems to be this: I maintain that we cannot even form viable presuppositions in such an environment. We can form working hypotheses (yours being: "Man is causing some degree of warming, the question is how much."), but a working hypothesis is not an established fact. Again, I'm not stating that this necessarily makes your working hypothesis wrong -- I'm just saying that we have to recognize it for what it is, or we will be unable to spot data that goes against it. For example, if we formed a working hypothesis that "all fire trucks are red," and also accepted that as our presupposition (i.e.- failed to recognize that it was just a hypothesis), then we would not even be LOOKING at blue trucks -- and we would thus never, ever spot a blue fire truck that busted our biases. Accordingly, in the end, we "prove" ourselves to be right, simply because our expectations directed all our subsequent research, and caused us to completely avoid channels that could prove us wrong ("We are NOT allocating one dime to examine blue trucks! We already know that all fire trucks are red, the only question is 'How red are they?'").

Any presupposition that isn't infallible is thus potentially very dangerous, so I try to keep extremely tight standards for what I'll accept without question.

Without a complete understanding of how climate works, I don't see how we can form any infallible presuppositions about what effect man might have -- if any -- on a system that we can't even establish a baseline for. That's why I keep an open mind. At least, until the science is ACTUALLY "settled."

I'll come back to the rest of your post later.

[AppleAl]

PL- did you see my reply to your PM from last week?

[Pretzel Logic]

Where we diverge seems to be this: I maintain that we cannot even form viable presuppositions in such an environment. We can form working hypotheses (yours being: "Man is causing some degree of warming, the question is how much."), but a working hypothesis is not an established fact. Again, I'm not stating that this necessarily makes your working hypothesis wrong -- I'm just saying that we have to recognize it for what it is, or we will be unable to spot data that goes against it. For example, if we formed a working hypothesis that "all fire trucks are red," and also accepted that as our presupposition (i.e.- failed to recognize that it was just a hypothesis), then we would not even be LOOKING at blue trucks -- and we would thus never, ever spot a blue fire truck that busted our biases. Accordingly, in the end, we "prove" ourselves to be right, simply because our expectations directed all our subsequent research, and caused us to completely avoid channels that could prove us wrong ("We are NOT allocating one dime to examine blue trucks! We already know that all fire trucks are red, the only question is 'How red are they?'").

I wanted to assure everyone that I already have our team working to discredit this recent discovery (below) as a bogus anomaly, put forth by the blue paint companies in order to forestall the regulations that will inevitably be coming, after our research into the amazing redness of fire trucks goes public.

Many in our team do not believe this is a "real" fire truck, since it clearly has "Indianapolis Colts" painted on the side, which means it's probably used to hose down rabid fans, not to put out fires. After all, we now have more than 100,000 photos of red fire trucks, and a strong consensus that the redness of fire trucks is both significant and impressive.

Another theory we're going to float to the media is that this truck is actually used to clean out horse stables, not to put out fires (note it has "Go Horse" printed near the bottom, exactly the type of thing one would shout if they were about to point a high-pressure hose into a horse stable! Coincidence? Unlikely.). Additionally, the scientist who released this photo has, in the past, received funding from "Big Paint."


   

[tuzo29]

I agree that the greenhouse effect itself is undebatable -- it's one of the things that makes our planet livable, and it comes from various different gasses (for example, water vapor is a major greenhouse gas). However, it may be important to note that the greenhouse effect is not something man has created, it's a natural function of our atmosphere, and it's the reason half our planet doesn't drop to -166 degrees at night. So, it's not really a bad thing of itself, per se.

I haven't read all your posts here. I don't know when I'll have time. I can say that we mostly agree. The one thing I've got a strong opinion on is that the greenhouse gas effect is real. More greenhouse gases = warmer planet. Venus and Mors are the two extreme ends of the spectrum here. It seems you agree that greenhouse gases warm the planet. Hooray for CONSENSUS! Where we disagree is in our willingness to take what most experts say is the case as the base case. You think we should keep an open mind until all the facts are in. Laissez faire on emissions until we know if there's a problem. I think we should prepare for the potential problem now and if it turns out it's not as big a problem, well, that's fine. It's a better outcome than doing nothing and the problem is as big or bigger than the scientists guessed. I'm all for libertarian when the market knows how to price goods and services. I don't think the market knows how to price carbon emissions, so let's legislate to minimize the potentially bad problem before it gets here. That's all. I'd rather I'm wrong than that I'm right about the problem, but either way prevention seems wise to me. Please tell me why this is a bad idea.

[Pretzel Logic]

I haven't read all your posts here. I don't know when I'll have time. I can say that we mostly agree. The one thing I've got a strong opinion on is that the greenhouse gas effect is real. More greenhouse gases = warmer planet. Venus and Mors are the two extreme ends of the spectrum here. It seems you agree that greenhouse gases warm the planet. Hooray for CONSENSUS! Where we disagree is in our willingness to take what most experts say is the case as the base case. You think we should keep an open mind until all the facts are in. Laissez faire on emissions until we know if there's a problem. I think we should prepare for the potential problem now and if it turns out it's not as big a problem, well, that's fine. It's a better outcome than doing nothing and the problem is as big or bigger than the scientists guessed. I'm all for libertarian when the market knows how to price goods and services. I don't think the market knows how to price carbon emissions, so let's legislate to minimize the potentially bad problem before it gets here. That's all. I'd rather I'm wrong than that I'm right about the problem, but either way prevention seems wise to me. Please tell me why this is a bad idea.

I believe you're a reasonable and intelligent person, and I think your heart is in the right place.

Let me draw an analogy: If I'm out at the movies, and someone I trust tells me my house is on fire, I'm going to leave ASAP and rush home to see if I can prevent disaster. That's what any reasonable person would do. But if I get home and discover the whole thing was a lie... well, that doesn't reflect on me personally in any way, it only reflects on the person who lied to me.

I think climate extremists have a LOT of well-intentioned people "rushing home to put out fires" that simply never existed in the first place.

Let's start with "Mors vs. Venus." Some climate extremists have led the public to believe that Venus is hot because of CO2 -- this is an outright misrepresentation. Venus is hot because its atmosphere is under extreme pressure and is 100 times thicker than the atmosphere of Earth! (I don't care WHAT gas you make an atmosphere out of, if it's 100x thicker, it's going to insulate better!)

As a result of this thicker atmosphere, surface pressures on Venus are 90x what they are on earth -- and as everyone knows: If you compress gas, it heats up (Ideal Gas Law: PV = nRT. Because gases are not perfectly compressible, Volume does not decrease linearly with increased Pressure, so Temperature must increase as Pressure increases in order to keep the Ideal Gas Law in balance.).

Anyway, the factoid below isn't even from a climate site, it's from an astronomy site:

Why is Venus So Hot? Venus is so hot because it is surrounded by a very thick atmosphere which is about 100 times more massive than our atmosphere here on Earth.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/3...nus-so-hot-

So the "CO2 = hot Venus" myth is just one more lie in a long string of lies pushed by climate extremists.



To get to the meat of your question: the main reason I feel it's a bad idea is because government regulation of energy and manufacturing crush the economy, and many of the proposed ideas, such as "carbon credits" for individuals, are downright Orwellian. If man-made global warming was truly a real crisis, then the proposed fascist state might at least be merited. But I don't think "bad problem" is even a real potential. Here are some of the reasons why:

The climate alarmists have created very misleading scenarios, and their "worst case" outcomes rely on all sorts of fabricated feedback loops (within their models) in order to generate anything even approaching "bad problems" (their feedback loops go something like this: man-made CO2 warms the atmosphere 0.7 degrees in the next 50 years. That causes something else, which causes something else, which causes something else, which causes something else and BOOM! temperature is up 3 degrees and BOOM! that causes something else which causes something else -- etc., ad infinitum -- and THEN, BOOM! finally, we have our "bad problem"). After all those hypothesis, all they release to the public is the final "dire outcome of man's CO2 addiction." They don't tell people how much utter crap they had to feed the model in order to arrive there.

The models themselves are really somewhat ludicrous, given our limited understanding of climate. And recent empirical evidence keeps literally proving those models to be dead wrong -- which is why many scientists who previously backed the IPCC are withdrawing their support (see James Lovelock and Richard Toll in prior posts -- two of many).

So, most importantly, the models put forth by the IPCC, et al, have, to date, failed to accurately predict temperature (in other words, they haven't stood the simple test of "accurate theory = accurate predictions," so we know the current theories are just wrong.).

In short: One thing we DO know for certain is that the models saying "bad problem" are flat-out "bad models."

This is one reason why I advocate questioning presuppositions here. Because it takes a WHOLE LOT of unproven and unsubstantiated presuppositions on the part of the IPCC's climate scientists to even begin to fabricate a "bad scenario." None of the data appears to support that "bad scenario," and the models have already, quite literally, been proven wrong. Why are we even listening to them anymore?

There is so much I want to write here, but let's just start with putting things in perspective in regards to CO2. First, most climate extremists use misleading graphs like the one below to make it seem like CO2 is "skyrocketing out of control":

   

The above is just DISHONEST plotting, because the y-axis starts at 290. This trick is one (of several) used by the AGP crowd to turn their graphs into "hockey sticks." If we plot the y-axis at zero, we get a much more truthful (but less alarming) graph:

   

It helps to keep things in perspective regarding just what a tiny component of our atmosphere CO2 is. This video below illustrates CO2's place in the atmosphere visually (with grains of rice):

But the biggest issue I have is that every recent discovery keeps illustrating how LITTLE science knows about ANYTHING AT ALL in this debate.

The quote below is from an article about volcanology, though it touches lightly on the implications for climatology. It outlines how, in only the past two decades, science has grown to realize that it was previously underestimating the amount of CO2 vented by volcanoes by a factor of SIX. To me, this just underscores how little we really know (as did the Cloud study). As a result of the endless "whoops, we didn't know that! Or that! Or that!" being a very consistent theme, it stands to reason that the constant stream of dire predictions emerging from the IPCC should carry about as much weight as a homeless man wearing a placard that asserts: "THE END IS NEAR!"

Both the IPCC and the homeless man are equally alarmist, and both lack any concrete evidence whatsoever to justify their dire predictions. The only fundamental difference is that the IPCC (more correctly: its ilk) want to control the entire world based on their unsubstantiated claim that "The end is near!"

In 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along: As scientific progress is widening our perspective, the daunting outline of how little we really know about volcanoes is beginning to loom large.

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcani...ering.html

The sheer staggering amount of "what we just don't know or understand yet" is why I'm bothered by the overall "we have all the answers" attitude projected by the AGP leadership, and absolutely disgusted by their attempts to label and silence "deniers." EVERYONE who does a modicum of research into this issue should be doubting that climatologists could possibly have ANY SOLID ANSWERS AT ALL. Climatology is still trying to learn how to crawl, but it can't even do that yet.

So it goes without saying that it definitely can't walk yet, and it certainly can't run.

So my bottom line is this: Which of these do you want to hang our future on?

1. "Saving the planet" based on science that is still in its infancy whose dire predictions have repeatedly ended up dead wrong -- leading even many of its OWN scientists who were previously "doomsayers" to back-pedal, or entirely reverse, their previously-alarmist stances.

-- or --

2. "Saving the world" based on trying to protect our individual and economic freedoms from those in power who want to control our every move. Freedoms, I might add, that HAVE been tested and proven to make the world a better place.

Which is safer? And which is truly more dangerous to humankind?

Which is proven? And which is constantly being proved wrong?

Which one encourages open discourse, innovation, and discovery? And which one mocks and silences the opposition, and keeps trying to push us closer to fascism?

Which one should scare us more? Which one is the REAL threat to our future?

If we're going to err on the side of caution, shouldn't we be trying to protect that which has been PROVEN to make the world better?

Isn't handing over our children's future to a new, struggling, and decidedly inaccurate, science actually radical and potentially disasterously irresponsible, as opposed to cautious?

You and I both want to protect things for future generations. But what actually NEEDS protection in this debate..?

[tuzo29]

It's great to worry about Big Brother, but I just don't think this is the issue that is preeminent on my list of things to worry about in that regard. Go get the FED dissolved. They have and will cause way more problems that a carbon tax would. Government is not evil, it's just extremely inefficient. As for your plot about CO2 in the atmosphere, let's look at a longer timescale. Here's a plot of CO2 in the atmosphere that shows the relative stability over the last 1000 years vs the last 100 years.
   
Something has clearly changed. Ignore the projections. My point is not the projection lines, but that we've broken out to the upside and there's no clear mechanism to cause it to stop going up. We stayed in the 250-300 ppm range for 900 years and now we are at 400. Is private sector going to fund basic research to investigate this? I don't think so. Is it worth researching? Probably not, if you are going to die in the next 50 years. We can start looking into it once the problem is clearer. Sorry for the sarcasm, but that's what I'm hearing from the AGW skeptics. If the increase is due to some natural cause, what is it? There's one explanation I've heard. Humans burning stuff. I am open to others, but I haven't heard any, and to say that the increase is a tiny fraction of the total at this point is just not accurate unless the data in this chart is wrong.

[AppleAl]

It's great to worry about Big Brother, but I just don't think this is the issue that is preeminent on my list of things to worry about in that regard. Go get the FED dissolved. They have and will cause way more problems that a carbon tax would. Government is not evil, it's just extremely inefficient. As for your plot about CO2 in the atmosphere, let's look at a longer timescale. Here's a plot of CO2 in the atmosphere that shows the relative stability over the last 1000 years vs the last 100 years.

Something has clearly changed. Ignore the projections. My point is not the projection lines, but that we've broken out to the upside and there's no clear mechanism to cause it to stop going up. We stayed in the 250-300 ppm range for 900 years and now we are at 400. Is private sector going to fund basic research to investigate this? I don't think so. Is it worth researching? Probably not, if you are going to die in the next 50 years. We can start looking into it once the problem is clearer. Sorry for the sarcasm, but that's what I'm hearing from the AGW skeptics. If the increase is due to some natural cause, what is it? There's one explanation I've heard. Humans burning stuff. I am open to others, but I haven't heard any, and to say that the increase is a tiny fraction of the total at this point is just not accurate unless the data in this chart is wrong.

The problem I have with this chart and other charts purporting to show long term climate trends is the assumption that the extrapolated historical data is an accurate reflection of reality at the time. I would guess that "ice core data" is derived based on multiple assumptions concerning rate of accumulation and methods of interpretation - leaving room for introduction of biases whether conscious or not. Also, is the modern data based on ice cores? If, as I suspect, it's based on measurements by modern instrumentation then can it properly be compared to estimations from ice cores?