2012 was warmest year in U.S. history

[mdgator05]

I sure wish this global warming would hurry up and get here. I just about froze my ass off again last night.

I walked around late last night without a coat on in Maryland. So global warming must exist. Of course, we could rely upon large scale empirical observations, but that requires knowing things like statistical modeling, which seems hard. So why bother?

[Burke]

Oak,

Color blindness is just the inability to see a certain wavelength, isn't it? No different than the inabity to see X-Rays, infrared, ultraviolet? Or the inability to hear at frequencies higher or lower than our hearing can detect.

How does this imply that the things you are able to detect are giving you false info?

Which is what "fallible" senses are supposed to be doing.

[neisgator]

I walked around late last night without a coat on in Maryland. So global warming must exist. Of course, we could rely upon large scale empirical observations, but that requires knowing things like statistical modeling, which seems hard. So why bother?

Your side does it everyday.

[mdgator05]

Your side does it everyday.

I'm really not as interested in "sides" as you seem to be. If somebody gives that argument, I would be happy to tell them that they are wrong, however they use the argument.

[OaktownGator]

Oak,

Color blindness is just the inability to see a certain wavelength, isn't it? No different than the inabity to see X-Rays, infrared, ultraviolet? Or the inability to hear at frequencies higher or lower than our hearing can detect.

How does this imply that the things you are able to detect are giving you false info?

Which is what "fallible" senses are supposed to be doing.
Below is an image depicting what normal, able bodied people see, and what people with three types of vision impairments see:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Ishihara_compare_1.jpg

In the worst case (protanope simulation), people likely wouldn't even see the number 2, unless they specifically knew to look for it.

How do we reconcile the wide disparity in these images, with statements that our senses provides us with "absolute truth"?

Is everyone's truth different?

How can our senses provide us absolute truth, when our senses are very limited, and also variable from person to person? And most of us are perceiving truth around us from multiple sensory inputs combined... if you're missing one or more of those senses completely, you're sense of the world around you, or the "truth" can be really limited. Conversely you can be confused by sensory overload.

I'm not trying to argue that we don't gather useful information with our senses... just that it is a big step to take say that information gathered is "absolute truth".

And then you get into the murky water of what we perceive from what we sense... this is affected by our experiences and biases, what we've had to drink or eat, how much stress we're under, how much relevant topical knowledge we can apply to a subject, how susceptible we are to influence by other people or groups, what types of influence have been brought to bear, and other factors.

Each person's view of the "truth" gets increasingly variable, with increasing likelihood of error when you add all that context.

[Burke]

"How can our senses provide us absolute truth, when our senses are very limited, and also variable from person to person?"

How does it follow from the fact that that our senses are limited that the data they do give is is false?

The fact that I can't see in infrared does not mean that an object I see on the visible light range is not there?

How does it follow that because another person is deaf that what I hear is not real?

The fact that our senses have a limited range does not mean they give us false info.

[OaktownGator]

"How can our senses provide us absolute truth, when our senses are very limited, and also variable from person to person?"

How does it follow from the fact that that our senses are limited that the data they do give is is false?

The fact that I can't see in infrared does not mean that an object I see on the visible light range is not there?

How does it follow that because another person is deaf that what I hear is not real?

The fact that our senses have a limited range does not mean they give us false info.
Which of the four images in my prior post is the "truth"?

[Burke]

They are all the truth. None of the data they give is false.

The fact that a color blind person can't see the 2 doesn't mean that what he can see is unreal.

No more than the fact that you can't see the atoms in a table means that you can't see the table or that your view of it is unreal.

Take a picture in the dark, and you see almost nothing.

Add a thermal imaging device, and you may see an animal.

The data you receive in each instance reflects something real, not something unreal.

The fact that two stars appear as one because you cannot resolve them with your naked eye does not mean that what you do see is unreal.

The fact that our senses have a limited range does not mean that what they do reveal is not real.

The key to understanding this is grasping that perception based on sensory experience is very fumdamental. The "errors" you think you are making are errors of judgement.

That you have discovered with your infallible senses.

[OaktownGator]

They are all the truth. None of the data they give is false.

The fact that a color blind person can't see the 2 doesn't mean that what he can see is unreal.

No more than the fact that you can't see the atoms in a table means that you can't see the table or that your view of it is unreal.

Take a picture in the dark, and you see almost nothing.

Add a thermal imaging device, and you may see an animal.

The data to receive in each I stance reflects something real, not something unreal.

The fact that two stars appear as one because you cannot resolve them with your naked eye does not mean that what you do see is unreal.

The fact that our senses have a limited range does not mean that what they do reveal is not real.
So, perhaps we're talking around each other over the word "truth". Saying that an individual perceives something within their limits and biases is fine; that is a data point among perhaps many data points. Considering that one perception (data point) to be "truth" is where I take exception.

With this understanding, literally anything can be considered "the truth" given any particular individual's cognitive limits, and perceptual biases... regardless of how far from the real truth, those limits and biases skew's the individual's perception.

The truth is that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa... no matter how apparent it was to earlier people that the sun revolved around the earth... which was "the truth" in their minds.

[ursidman]

More on the subject and rather than starting another thread here goes:http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/14/an-alarm-in-the-offing-on-climate-change/?hp The report is draft and subject to change but:

The natural conservatism of science has often led climatologists to be cautious in their pronouncements about global warming. Indeed, more than once they have drawn criticism for burying their fundamental message – that society is running some huge risks — in caveats and cavils.

To judge from the draft of a new report issued by a federal advisory committee, that hesitation may soon fall by the wayside. The draft, just unveiled for public comment before it becomes final, is the latest iteration of a major series of reports requested by Congress on the effects of climate change in the United States.

Summers are longer and hotter, and periods of extreme heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours, though in many regions there are longer dry spells in between.”

The report cites stronger scientific evidence—developed since the last report of this type was published in 2009—that human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels, are the primary cause of these changes. It warns that if humanity fails to get a handle on emissions, the changes are likely to accelerate. And it cites numerous ways, from health problems to wildfires to extreme weather events, that climate change threatens human welfare – not in some distant land in some far-off time, but here in the United States, and soon.


Climate change is real. Science is admittedly an imperfect process but studies in so many disciplines coalesce around the fact of climate change. Ignoring it is political.

[dangolegators]

So, perhaps we're talking around each other over the word "truth". Saying that an individual perceives something within their limits and biases is fine; that is a data point among perhaps many data points. Considering that one perception (data point) to be "truth" is where I take exception.

With this understanding, literally anything can be considered "the truth" given any particular individual's cognitive limits, and perceptual biases... regardless of how far from the real truth, those limits and biases skew's the individual's perception.

The truth is that the earth revolves around the sun, and not vice versa... no matter how apparent it was to earlier people that the sun revolved around the earth... which was "the truth" in their minds.

Burke isn't saying anything that matters. The pure data that your senses collect might not be wrong (and this is debatable), but the conclusions you draw from that data sure can be, and that's all that matters. Having limited data can be just as bad as having incorrect data and can just as easily lead one to draw untruthful conclusions.

[Burke]

Oak,

You need to understand the issue here more clearly.

Kant claimed that our senses NEVER gave us anything real because everything we perceive with them is "processed knowledge," processed though our sensory apparatus and altered somewhat by it. He claimed that we did not see the real "noumenal" world and that what we think we are perceiving is an unreal "phenomenal" world.

But this is nonsense.

If we don't EVER perceive anything real, we are not even conscious and could never even conceive of anything real. Essentially, he was saying that we cannot perceive anything real because we have a means of perception.

He was saying that perception is not perception because it is perception.

A gross contradiction.

The fact is that once you admit that man is capable of ANY truth, you are then confronted with the reality of his accomplishments with the faculties that provide those truths:

The accomplishments of the modern world: moon shots, televisions, computers, and on and on.

Then it becomes only a question of method, of HOW he is doing all of this.

And that's where the fun begins for us Objectivists.

[GatorRade]

Rade,

I have no problem saying that we don't know everything, that we are not omniscient.

That's not the issue.

When you say that we can know no truth, you are engaging in a simple contradiction. And there are no contradictions in nature.

I start out by saying that everything we perceive is a fact, knowledge, that this is self-evident, and that every attempt to deny this entails a contradiction, someone claiming to know that he can know nothing, which is impossible.

Additionally, at the conceptual level, I observe that our senses are physical entities responding to physical stimuli according to the deterministic laws of nature. They are incapable of acting otherwise. The claim that they do is akin to alchemy.

These are important questions to ponder, Burke. Like with Oak, there may be a semantic issue here with the word truth, but we may have a real disagreement. In science, there are hypotheses, models, and theories, and none of these are intended to be synonyms for truth. Evolutionary theory, big bang theory, string theory...these are the very best ways we have of understanding the natural world, but every scientist knows that even the best theories are amended or often completely replaced.

Now I am not saying that we can't know anything, but what I am saying is that cannot prove that our models are true. You cannot prove that all swans are white. No matter how many thousands of white swans you see, you need to keeping looking for the next one. And the next one. I am not saying that your physical nervous system is incapable of transmitting actual information to you about the natural world. I believe that you saw 2,000 swans, and I believe that they were white. But that doesn't mean I believe you know what color the next swan will be.

BTW, what do you teach and where?

I teach biology at USF. I love it.

A final question, if you can know no truths with your rational faculty, how are you any different from a tribal witch doctor claiming to have mystical revelations?

This goes back to my post above to charts. Just because neither evolutionary theory nor creationism is absolute truth doesn't mean that they are both equally supported by the evidence. I believe very strongly that mutation and natural selection can generate virtually infinite variation in nature and this is what gave us rhinos, toucans, and oak trees. But then here comes a new field, epigenetics, and now I wonder if we really understood mutation's role in creation of these novel traits. Epigenetics will very likely falsify some of our evolutionary model, but it does not prove true creationism.

Nate Silver's model for predicting the election outcomes is very likely not correct, but I would bet on it everyday over Dick Morris' "gut" predictions.

[Burke]

Dango writes,

"Burke isn't saying anything that matters. The pure data that your senses collect might not be wrong (and this is debatable), but the conclusions you draw from that data sure can be, and that's all that matters. Having limited data can be just as bad as having incorrect data and can just as easily lead one to draw untruthful conclusions."

Men are capable of error at the conceptual level. Conceptual knowledge is a growth process that begins with percepts.

And can be proven or disproven with the use of our senses.

This process is known as "reason" and is the faculty that differentiates men from the other animals.

So you might say that it does matter.

[Burke]

Rade,

The white swan scenario is the traditional "problem" used to frame the famous Problem of Induction.

And is very easily disposed of, if you understand that the word "swan" is just a symbol for a concept.

Let me ask you this:

Why would you call a "swan" of a different color a swan? People of different colors have different names: Caucasians, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc.? And what "problem" would there be if you gave them a different name aside from the fact that man is not omniscient?

And the fact that men propose theories that are often unproven does not mean that all his knowledge is just an unproven theory. I can remember the Steady State theory before the Big Bang theory, etc.

The important thing to remember is that knowledge is a growth process, and the fact that we gain new knowledge does not necessarily mean that it disproves earlier knowledge.

In fact, AGW as a threat is just such a theory.

[wgbgator]

Scientific theories don't necessarily "disprove" other ones. They can be incommensurable.

[GatorRade]

Rade,

The white swan scenario is the traditional "problem" used to frame the famous Problem of Induction.

And is very easily disposed of, if you understand that the word "swan" is just a symbol for a concept.

Let me ask you this:

Why would you call a "swan" of a different color a swan? People of different colors have different names: Caucasians, Blacks, Asians, Hispanics, etc.? And what "problem" would there be if you gave them a different name aside from the fact that man is not omniscient?

I am not following this line of discussion.

And the fact that men propose theories that are often unproven does not mean that all his knowledge is just an unproven theory. I can remember the Steady State theory before the Big Bang theory, etc.

The important thing to remember is that knowledge is a growth process, and the fact that we gain new knowledge does not necessarily mean that it disproves earlier knowledge.

In fact, AGW as a threat is just such a theory.

I disagree, as does current philosophy of science. The fact that theories, like Steady State, Lamarckian evolution, and Newtonian become discarded is the very indication that these theories were not truth. And scientific theories are the very best models the world has ever produced. Because they are the best models, I can't tell you how the theories of Quantum mechanics and relativity will change in the future, but I can tell you there is no way they will be in their current form in 50 years. No way. We simply do not have this relationship with the world.

Evidence can support an explanation. Or suggest. Or indicate. But it cannot prove. Current evidence suggests that human emissions are warming the Earth, but this model will no doubt be revised in the future. But for now, this model is the most consistent with current theory and empirical evidence. Again, scientific theories aren't useless; they are the very best models we have. But models are not truths. They are models.

[OaktownGator]

Oak,

You need to understand the issue here more clearly.

Kant claimed that our senses NEVER gave us anything real because everything we perceive with them is "processed knowledge," processed though our sensory apparatus and altered somewhat by it. He claimed that we did not see the real "noumenal" world and that what we think we are perceiving is an unreal "phenomenal" world.

But this is nonsense.

If we don't EVER perceive anything real, we are not even conscious and could never even conceive of anything real. Essentially, he was saying that we cannot perceive anything real because we have a means of perception.

He was saying that perception is not perception because it is perception.

A gross contradiction.

The fact is that once you admit that man is capable of ANY truth, you are then confronted with the reality of his accomplishments with the faculties that provide those truths:

The accomplishments of the modern world: moon shots, televisions, computers, and on and on.

Then it becomes only a question of method, of HOW he is doing all of this.

And that's where the fun begins for us Objectivists.
You appear to be arguing Rand vs Kant... but this is Burke and Oak.

The thoughts of philosophers are interesting and often enlightening, but I hardly take them as truths that I need to argue. If I truly believe in the stand that a particular philosopher takes on a particular subject, I will argue it because I believe it, not because that philosopher said it.

Clearly, we can and do ascertain useful knowledge with our senses, cognitive abilities, and sometimes even perceptive abilities that go beyond what we know we can obtain from our senses (like the sense you are being watched and you turn to find out you are in fact being watched).

But we are also deceived and/or provided incomplete, misleading information about the world around us, by those very same senses and cognitive and perceptive abilities.

Further, some things like climate change are just damned complicated to understand.

The assignment of "absolute truth" to what we sense and perceive cannot be conclusive when we know for a fact that we can be mislead by our senses and perceptions. The more complicated the subject, and the more variables that could impact the accuracy of the information collected, the less "truthy" any particular conclusion can be.

With that recognition, we can be open to obtaining more relevant information and not jumping to incorrect, unsupported conclusions. We can quest for the best truth we can find, rather than stagnate defending an undefendable "truth".

No Kant there. Just Oak. Feel free to quote, though. :joecool:

[Burke]

It appears to me that you each have the same problem:

You don't fully appreciate that there are no contradictions in nature.

And that when you ignore contradictions as you each do, you are abandoning logic and therefore reason itself.

Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification. Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification.

Every attempt to deny that your senses give you facts of reality involves a contradiction.

They therefore give us certain knowledge which serves as the foundation of all our knowledge.

The next big question is what are we doing with this certain knowledge.

For the answer to that, I suggest the best little book you probably never heard of:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_introdu ction_to_objectivist_epistemology

[GatorRade]

We have a disagreement, Burke, not a problem. :)

You are clearly trained to this line of logic that I simply do not accept. You cannot just, out of the blue, claim that (1) contradictions do not exist and (2) your opponents are arguing a contradiction. It is not a contradiction to suggest that many objective problems in nature are simply too complex, rare, or non-verifiable to know them as truth.

I am not saying that objectivism is false, but that even the most objective and astute rational mind cannot know things that cannot be directly studied in a controlled environment. This is very basic philosophy of science, and I think even Rand would agree with this.

I don't doubt that there is an external objective reality. What I doubt is that you, Burke, and us, Rade and Oak, can fully understand it. Nowhere is there a law that states that we humans evolved the ability to understand complex truth.

[Burke]

The Law of Non-Contradiction was pronounced first by Aristotle, not by Rand, although she accepted it.

It's been around for over 2000 years.

The history of philosophy, I believe, is largely a conflict between Aristotle's rational, logical, scientific approach and the gaggle of mystics and sophists who opposed him.

This is essentially why your "scientific" approach is anything but.

Claiming to know with certainty that man can know nothing with certainty is complete nonsense.

A contradiction.

And impossible.

[WESGATORS]

A world can only be as objective as our ability to understand it as such. The world as we understand it today will necessarily be vastly different than the world that will be understood 100 years from now. Not so much because the world itself as changed, but our ability to understand it will have changed.

Anyway, the manatees are enjoying global warming:

http://www.alligator.org/news/local/article_7e5d2c4c-5ecd-11e2-b4f8-0019bb2963f4.html

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[WESGATORS]

Claiming to know with certainty that man can know nothing with certainty is complete nonsense.

And what of the theory that man cannot know anything with certainty? Can that be disproven?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[OaktownGator]

It appears to me that you each have the same problem:

You don't fully appreciate that there are no contradictions in nature.

And that when you ignore contradictions as you each do, you are abandoning logic and therefore reason itself.

Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification. Logic is the art or skill of non-contradictory identification.

Every attempt to deny that your senses give you facts of reality involves a contradiction.

They therefore give us certain knowledge which serves as the foundation of all our knowledge.

The next big question is what are we doing with this certain knowledge.

For the answer to that, I suggest the best little book you probably never heard of:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_introdu ction_to_objectivist_epistemology
From your link:
How do we know what we know? Is reason a reliable source of knowledge—or is it superseded by mystical revelation or emotional intuition? Can we be certain about our knowledge—or must we always remain in doubt?

Questions such as these are the province of epistemology—the branch of philosophy concerned with the theory of knowledge. And the answers depend crucially on one central issue in epistemology: that of the nature and validity of concepts. If our concepts refer to things existing in reality, then our knowledge is real and reliable. If they do not, however—if instead they are imaginary constructs adopted by authority or by social convention, then our knowledge is baseless and inherently undependable.
I certainly agree with the tenet in the last statement that I bolded. No problems there.

But Rand sets up a false dichotomy in merely comparing reason as a source of knowledge, to "mystical revelation and emotional intuition".

Reason is certainly the source of knowledge that we use from a scientific standpoint. What she fails to address is the inherent problems with accuracy and completeness of the information we perceive, in order to use reason effectively.

She assumes concepts based in reality, that rely on our memories based on our senses, cognition and perception. I have already very clearly addressed problems with relying on our senses, cognition and perception (which in and of themselves are clearly fallible), but let's talk about memories, which is what gets locked into our heads as our sense of "reality".

From The Stanford Journal of Legal Studies (http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One/fisher&tversky.htm):

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses.5 For this reason, lawyers closely question witnesses regarding the accuracy of their memories and about any possible "assistance" from others in the formation of their present memories. However, psychologists have long recognized that gap filling and reliance on assumptions are necessary to function in our society. For example, if we did not assume that mail will be delivered, or that the supermarkets will continue to stock bread, we would behave quite differently than we do. We are constantly filling in the gaps in our recollection and interpreting things we hear. For instance, while on the subway we might hear garbled words like "next," "transfer," and "train." Building on our assumptions and knowledge, we may put together the actual statement: "Next stop 53rd Street, transfer available to the E train." Indeed, we may even remember having heard the full statement.

So what is an "original memory?"6 The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it.

Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable—due to the reconstruction of their memory—to reconsider their initial understanding. When a witness identifies a person in a line-up, he is likely to identify that same person in later line-ups, even when the person identified is not the perpetrator. Although juries and decision-makers place great reliance on eyewitness identification, they are often unaware of the danger of false memories.
The above examples illustrate false memories many/most people arrive at dealing with fairly simple day to day situations. The more complex the scenario the less likely the memories are to be complete and accurate.

Again, I am not saying we should not look to our senses, perceptions and reason as a source of knowledge. For simple measurements, that "truth" can generally be held as fact. A quart of water is a quart of water. There is no argument about that. Just need to measure accurately.

But we also need to be cognizant of the inherent limitations, biases and inaccuracies that generally accompany our senses and perceptions. If we do so, we are more likely to push for enough additional supporting information to come to reasonable conclusions, most closely approximating "the truth" about any particular subject.

[GatorRade]

Again, I am not saying we should not look to our senses, perceptions and reason as a source of knowledge. For simple measurements, that "truth" can generally be held as fact. A quart of water is a quart of water. There is no argument about that. Just need to measure accurately.

But we also need to be cognizant of the inherent limitations, biases and inaccuracies that generally accompany our senses and perceptions. If we do so, we are more likely to push for enough additional supporting information to come to reasonable conclusions, most closely approximating "the truth" about any particular subject.

Exactly. This isn't a contradiction. A contradiction would be if I told you that I know people can't know the truth, and therefore I personally know the more accurate truth. That obviously makes no sense. But saying that we can't prove models to be true? That's simply understanding the limits of knowledge. And some theories may understand nature very well. But how can we tell which ones are which? If we could, then we wouldn't have those other theories to begin with. In other words, knowing both that theories are truth and that theories are continually replaced is a contradiction in itself.

[Burke]

So now you are conceding that our senses do give us facts of reality, that is, truth?

[GatorRade]

So now you are conceding that our senses do give us facts of reality, that is, truth?

I think several of my posts will indicate this is not exactly what I believe. I think we can define what our senses give us as 'truth' as you are doing. But then we run into the trouble that Oak has brought up, where you and I will see two very different "truths" from the same experience. To me, that means that this is most certainly not truth. And then of course, once we get to complex topics like climate change, there is no such thing as truth. It's just the best we can do.

[Burke]

Two people cannot fail to see see the same truth from exactly the same circumstances.

[WESGATORS]

Two people cannot see the same truth from exactly the same circumstances.

Technically, if it is "exactly the same circumstances" then all the variables are the same, and the conclusion drawn is the same. If the conclusion drawn is different, then there is a variance that caused the difference.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

I carelessly wrote the exact opposite of what I intended to write there, but have corrected it.

[OaktownGator]

Two people cannot fail to see see the same truth from exactly the same circumstances.

People do fail to see the same "truth" from the same circumstances... and it happens regularly. Reasons for this clearly cited earlier.

[Burke]

Lets take this argument another way.

Suppose 50 people "see" a thing a certain way and one person "sees" it another way (using, for e.g., your color blind hypo).

How do you know that the one person is "wrong," and the other 50, right?

There are blind dolphins (I think) that "see" with sonar.

If two different senses each tell you about reality, by what standard do you say one is right and the other, wrong?

The fact is that there is only one reality. And the fact that one person may be seeing part of it that another doesn't see does not mean that there are two "truths," two "realities."

And this is not just a semantic exercise.

Because those claiming that there are two realities, two truths, at the same place and the same time have ulterior motives.

They do this as a way of attempting to claim that reality itself is subjective, subject to different interpretations, etc. And often as a way of getting away with contradictions.

Reality is what it is. There is only one. The fact that we may perceive different aspects of it does not change that. We don't each have different "truths." "What's true for you may not be true for me" is BS.

Reality is real. It is objective. It is in no way a product of our consciousness.

"Scientists" who claim to have observed otherwise with their senses are engaging in a contradiction and are little more than mystics themselves.

[wgbgator]

There may only be one reality. I don't think anyone is disputing that, as much as they are disputing that we can be certain about what that one reality entails. We can be confident that we are correct based on scientific enquiry & observation, but we can't be completely certain. Indeed, science continues to operate and test things within the context of that perceived reality that we are confident about, and by doing so, it may eventually bring it in to question again, forcing a new way of thinking about what that reality is.

[Burke]

How do scientists "test things" if they have no means of seeing the truth?

How do they know that, say, the first result instead of the second was not the correct one?

Or the first of 50 or 1000 contrary results?

If your senses are "fallible," by what means do you know when they are giving you truth and when the are not?

[Gatorrick22]

More scientific evidence of global warming.


"scientists from the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., announced Tuesday. The past year smashed the previous record for the warmest year, which was 1998.

The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3 degrees, 3.2 degrees above the 20th century average, and 1 degree above 1998."



http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/01/08/record-warm-year-2012/1817841/

Anomaly......nothing more. But I'm sure the Dems will find this to be a good reason to raise everyone's taxes even further.

[wgbgator]

That's why observations and experimentation need replication, recording and external review.

[WESGATORS]

How do scientists "test things" if they have no means of seeing the truth?

How do they know that, say, the first result instead of the second was not the correct one?

Or the first of 50 or 1000 contrary results?

If your senses are "fallible," by what means do you know when they are giving you truth and when the are not?

The knowledge of the world around us is built on faith (from "fidere," Latin for "trust"). The information that we receive allows us to build theories that we use to operate. When we experience something, we have faith that it is the truth, and we generally stick by that unless a contradiction is or even can be presented to us.

We know our senses are fallible (or more accurately, the complete process of receiving the input all the way through interpreting it can be considered fallible) because we have been deceived and drawn false conclusions or misinterpreted information that we have received.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

We are capable of error at the conceptual level, at the level at which we handle the evidence of our senses and draw conclusions, make judgments.

We know that by means of our senses, which give us the facts of reality: that is, knowledge.

[WESGATORS]

We are capable of error at the conceptual level, at the level at which we handle the evidence of our senses and draw conclusions, make judgments.

We know that by means of our senses, which give us the facts of reality: that is, knowledge.

I'm not sure what distinction you are making.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[wgbgator]

I think that's just Burke trying to argue for Objectivism. Without some sort of philosophical grounding in the knowledge of the senses, its just a pseudo-intellectual justification of selfishness.

[exiledgator]

We are capable of error at the conceptual level, at the level at which we handle the evidence of our senses and draw conclusions, make judgments.

We know that by means of our senses, which give us the facts of reality: that is, knowledge.

There's no other level. Senses are not uploaded onto blank hard dives. They're interpreted and stored through the lens of preconception.

[wygator]

Globally, it was only the 10th warmest year in the modern temperature record. The US is only about 2% of the global surface.

[Burke]

Animals, like humans, have senses, which, like humans, they can integrate into percepts: that which we actually see, hear, feel, taste, etc.

Humans, however, can perceive similarities among things that exist and integrate those things into concepts. Things like "tree," "cloud," or "man."

In this way, we are able to reduce the vast amount of perceptual data we acquire into something we can grasp and hold mentally.

And use that ability to walk on the moon, etc.

It's called "conceptual knowledge."

It's our distinct means of cognition.

[Dreamliner]

What if the 'crisis' part of 'warming crisis' was wrong ? Some scientists believe it's a net-gain.

This is beginning to look more and more like the trumped-up 'obesity crisis.'

[WESGATORS]

Animals, like humans, have senses, which, like humans, they can integrate into percepts: that which we actually see, hear, feel, taste, etc.

Humans, however, can perceive similarities among things that exist and integrate those things into concepts. Things like "tree," "cloud," or "man."

In this way, we are able to reduce the vast amount of perceptual data we acquire into something we can grasp and hold mentally.

And use that ability to walk on the moon, etc.

It's called "conceptual knowledge."

It's our distinct means of cognition.

Do other mammals have better hearing than us or are they just smarter in being able to interpret the data where we cannot? How about the animals that know to go to high ground when heavy rains/flooding are imminent. Is it fair to say that we have better overall processing ability, but they have better sensory collection devices (depending on the animal and the referenced sense)? Can a sense be "better" without an indication that the other is inferior?

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[HALLGATOR]

Two people cannot fail to see see the same truth from exactly the same circumstances.

The problem with that is getting two people into the exact same circumstances. You may physically get their body to that point but getting their minds minds to coincide would be a far trickier proposition. And that is just talking about two people when we have a world of billions.

[Burke]

Wes,

Modern empiricists claim that the only thing man can know with certainty is that which he perceives with his senses and that conceptual knowledge is nonsense.

My response to them has been why then aren't the other animals, many of which have more acute senses than we have and some of which have been around much longer, the ones doing the great advances in technology, etc.?

[exiledgator]

Deductive reasoning?

Opposable thumbs?

[WESGATORS]

Wes,

Modern empiricists claim that the only thing man can know with certainty is that which he perceives with his senses and that conceptual knowledge is nonsense.

My response to them has been why then aren't the other animals, many of which have more acute senses than we have and some of which have been around much longer, the ones doing the great advances in technology, etc.?

I don't see the concepts of empiricism and rationalism as mutually exclusive.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[Burke]

Modern empiricists claim that conceptionalization is not a valid way of knowing things. Rationalism claims that our senses are not reliable.

Rand accepts what can be thought of as an older, Aristotelean kind of empiricism. Our senses give us certain knowledge, and that knowledge is a foundation upon which more advanced conceptual knowledge is built upon.

[HALLGATOR]

Rand's philosophy is better suited for a world full of Vulcans in my opinion. One of my biggest issues with her is, what I see as, a failure to take into account how much part emotions have in shaping our being. Thus when I think of Rand the first word that comes to mind is "cold." This is the way I felt when reading both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as both were akin to reading technical manuals.

[GatorRade]

Animals, like humans, have senses, which, like humans, they can integrate into percepts: that which we actually see, hear, feel, taste, etc.

Humans, however, can perceive similarities among things that exist and integrate those things into concepts. Things like "tree," "cloud," or "man."

In this way, we are able to reduce the vast amount of perceptual data we acquire into something we can grasp and hold mentally.

And use that ability to walk on the moon, etc.

It's called "conceptual knowledge."

It's our distinct means of cognition.

Yes! Now we are on the same page. Human reduce the vast amount of data into something we can grasp mentally. That is an excellent description of a model.

[GatorRade]

Wes,

Modern empiricists claim that the only thing man can know with certainty is that which he perceives with his senses and that conceptual knowledge is nonsense.

My response to them has been why then aren't the other animals, many of which have more acute senses than we have and some of which have been around much longer, the ones doing the great advances in technology, etc.?

And now you've totally lost me again. In other words, if conceptual models aren't truth, why don't amoeba's fly planes? Among the many ways that I could go about answering this, I choose to quote myself from a couple pages back.

Again, scientific theories aren't useless; they are the very best models we have. But models are not truths. They are models.

[Burke]

See next reply.

[Burke]

Models, from what I can tell, are theories, proposed principles, created WITH concepts. Concepts themselves are not models.

We look out, differentiate what we observe into things, observe that some of those things are similar, integrate them into concepts, give them symbols that we call words, and give those words definitions that serve to give them an identity.

Words are perceptual concretes that symbolize the concept for all the trees (for e.g.) that exist, that have ever existed, or that will ever exist.

That's how we move from the perceptual level of cognition to the conceptual level.

How we reduce the vast amount of perceptual data we acquire to something we can grasp and hold mentally.

Men are conceptual beings.

(Something you should know: Every legitimate word we use with the exception of proper names (Barak Obama, New York City, etc.) are concepts.)

[OaktownGator]

Models are created to prove (or disprove) concepts. The concepts themselves being ideas which we believe describe some aspect of reality... like the concept the CO2 is a forcing agent for warming (and other elements of climate change).

Because the climate is a very complex system with many factors involved, it takes a pretty sophisticated model to prove or disprove to what level CO2 is a forcing agent.

[Burke]

I suppose the word "concept" can be used in different ways, but here I'm using it as synonymous with "abstraction" or "universal" at one time. It's a well known term among philosophers.

Man, car, horse, justice, are examples of concepts.

[G8trGr8t]

meanwhile, China is having record cold winter...funny how we don't hear about that

[GatorRade]

meanwhile, China is having record cold winter...funny how we don't hear about that

HuffPost, 4 days ago: California Cold Hits Record Low Temperatures (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/california-cold-weather_n_2468378.html)
Reuters, 6 days ago: California cold snap threatens citrus crop, strands motorists (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-usa-weather-california-idUSBRE90A13C20130111)
SF Chronicle, yesterday: California Citrus Crop Weathers Cold Snap (http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/California-citrus-crop-weathers-cold-snap-4200805.php)
NBCNews, 6 days ago: As California shivers, other parts of US enjoy record highs in January (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/11/16464442-as-california-shivers-other-parts-of-us-enjoy-record-highs-in-january)

I think perhaps you just aren't looking hard enough.

[WESGATORS]

(Something you should know: Every legitimate word we use with the exception of proper names (Barak Obama, New York City, etc.) are concepts.)

I suppose the word "concept" can be used in different ways, but here I'm using it as synonymous with "abstraction" or "universal" at one time. It's a well known term among philosophers.

Man, car, horse, justice, are examples of concepts.

I would say that words are merely labels that we have created to refer to concepts. This is most apparent when two people use similar words to refer to slightly different concepts. When you say "man" are you referring to the male specifically or humans? When you say "car" are you referring to any 4-wheeler or would you exclude jeeps, SUVs, pickups, etc.? When you say "justice" is this in reference to an objective standard or a subjective view? Some labels lend themselves to more ambiguity than others.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[G8trGr8t]

HuffPost, 4 days ago: California Cold Hits Record Low Temperatures (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/13/california-cold-weather_n_2468378.html)
Reuters, 6 days ago: California cold snap threatens citrus crop, strands motorists (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/11/us-usa-weather-california-idUSBRE90A13C20130111)
SF Chronicle, yesterday: California Citrus Crop Weathers Cold Snap (http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/California-citrus-crop-weathers-cold-snap-4200805.php)
NBCNews, 6 days ago: As California shivers, other parts of US enjoy record highs in January (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/11/16464442-as-california-shivers-other-parts-of-us-enjoy-record-highs-in-january)

I think perhaps you just aren't looking hard enough.

all about a relatively minor event in Cali...meanwhile the largest by population country is experiencing record cold that is threatening their food supply but we have all this discussion about how warmth in US is proof positive of global warming and no discussion of record cold across China

[GatorRade]

all about a relatively minor event in Cali...meanwhile the largest by population country is experiencing record cold that is threatening their food supply but we have all this discussion about how warmth in US is proof positive of global warming and no discussion of record cold across China

Hmm, you think this has to do with warming vs. cooling and not the fact that no one in the US cares about China? Because I am not seeing all this warmth in the US is proof positive of warming (except this thread).

Here's what I mean: Record warming in France and Australia while record cold in China and India persists (http://soundofheart.org/galacticfreepress/content/record-january-warmth-france-and-australia-while-record-cold-china-and-india-persists). How often have we heard of record warmth in France or cold in India? You know, never...in my opinion because US citizens don't care about other countries. I mean, think about how much pub the Somali famine gets here, which is much bigger deal than some cold air in China. To call this a climate conspiracy seems like some serious selective interpretation.

[Gatorrick22]

China is in the midst of the coldest winter in decades. Libs do understand global means the whole world and not just the USA, don't they?

No......this fact might stump them. It's tantamount to the U.S. cutting our use of fossil fuels, because of the so-called man-made Global warming, and then us turning around and selling our coal to China so they can burn it into the atmosphere - as if China had a different atmosphere altogether.

[Burke]

:lie:Wes,

You are getting warm, and you are right that words are symbols for concepts. Also, we frequently use the same word for many different concepts, although the meanings are often close to one another. The different meanings listed in dictionaries have numbers called "sense numbers." Not long ago, I looked the word "case" up on my computer dictionary, and it had 23 different meanings.

But the fact that concepts are abstract does not mean they are subjective. The word "justice," for example, is abstract but it still has real world referents: people actually sitting in jail, being forced to pay their debts, etc. All the real world examples of people getting what they deserve. "Tree" is a perceptual concrete because one can just look at it, see it, and know what it is without any prior knowledge to speak of. But you can't just look at a man in jail and and know what justice is. You have to know a lot more about mankind first.

It's important to know that concepts are hierarchical in nature. You observe that there are trees and create the concept "tree." You then note that there are different kinds of trees and subdivide "tree" into sub-concepts, oaks, pines, and so forth. The you subdivide those concepts into even more, the different kinds of oaks and pines, etc.

However, concept formation moves in the opposite direction, also. You note that trees are part of even wider concepts: plants, living things, entities, etc.

This hierarchical nature of concepts is very important in the use of logic.

One last crucial point: The meaning of a concept is not its definition. The meaning is what the concept actually refers to: all the actual trees that exist, that have ever existed, and that will ever exist, for example.

The purpose of a definition is to identify the nature of a concept's referents. It serves to set them apart from everything else within the range of our knowledge, to distinguish them. This means that definitions can and do change as our knowledge grows, because some of the ones we are currently using might no longer serve that purpose.

Always remember that the main purpose of conceptualization is cognition (and not communication, although communication is clearly very important.)

You have to know things before you can communicate stuff about them.

[GatorJeff]

meanwhile, China is having record cold winter...funny how we don't hear about that

As usual, conservative thought patterns relative to science are limited to anecdotal observation. "Hey, it's real cold in China this winter, global warming must be a hoax. Told ya!!".

The reality is that they're just too lazy or stupid to fully analyze complex issues.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html

[altalias]

Anyone 27 and under has never seen a colder than average month (worldwide).

My younger daughter is in China. She has experiencing a record cold month. In fact the city she is in shut down because they were not prepared to deal with the cold. She is a little south of Shanghai by the way. She turned 23 January 12th. If you didn't just make it up don't use that source again.

[OaktownGator]

I suppose the word "concept" can be used in different ways, but here I'm using it as synonymous with "abstraction" or "universal" at one time. It's a well known term among philosophers.

Man, car, horse, justice, are examples of concepts.
Wes pointed out that words can have varying degrees of ambiguity in relation to the concepts they are describing, but I get what you're saying wrt a concept (including your follow up post).... and that still applies to AGW, right?

Anthropogenic Global Warming - words describing a concept that our activities are causing climate change - specifically warming. And that concept is based on observations as opposed to coming from some intuition or dreaming it up...

We know that atmospheric CO2 is rising very rapidly and is abnormally high (35% over previous peaks in the last several hundred thousand years) from an historic standpoint.
We know that a large portion of that increase is due to our activities - increase in CO2 released from fossil fuels, and decrease in available CO2 sinks (forests) to absorb the released CO2.
Finally, we know from experiments that in a closed system, a container of CO2 will rise in temperature a good deal faster than a container of oxygen, when exposed to sunlight, and retain the heat longer.
Combine these observations and you have a reasonable starting point for a theory on global warming.


But the earth is much more complex than a simple closed system, which is why I am hesitant regarding the forcing impact of CO2 increases.

We know that CO2 has typically trailed temperature increases in the past.
We know that there are multiple cyclical changes of various durations that impact the climate.
We know those cyclical changes are primarily related to the amount of radiation the earth is exposed to (intuitively, the single most important factor).
Long term cycles (in the several tens of thousands of years) would indicate we are at a peak and roughly due for a long term cooling cycle into a major ice age.
We know there are other factors that have major impacts, such as global ocean currents, which provide major heat transfers.


All of this to say, AGW is a legit concept founded observationally, regardless of what degree we buy into it. And the complexity of it demands the rigorous continuously evolving models that Rade mentions, in order to make sense of it and make informed projections.

[Gatoragman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by fredsanford
Anyone 27 and under has never seen a colder than average month (worldwide).

My younger daughter is in China. She has experiencing a record cold month. In fact the city she is in shut down because they were not prepared to deal with the cold. She is a little south of Shanghai by the way. She turned 23 January 12th. If you didn't just make it up don't use that source again.Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas/showthread.php?t=253790&page=16#ixzz2ILfiePBe

Fred uses sources??????

[wargunfan]

If science were to suddenly prove beyond reasonable doubt that AGW was real I don't think it would change the modus operandi of the Chinese one iota. On the other hand the United States would go into melt down (pun intended) with new regulations and taxes even while the Chinese went their merry polluting way.

[boligator]

The major problem I see here is that most people on this board have no clue to the basic principles of thermodynamics...the climate is changing...be it natural or man made...it IS changing...I live in Colombia and for the last several years the rain is less each year...it is real guys...the question is what do we do about it...you are so concerned about the economic future of our children...yet you ignore the reality of climate change...I just don't understand the opposition to any real dialogue that our planet is indeed changing climate wise...I could give a rats a$$ about what political crap you adhere to...but we are in for a big challenge globally...stay tuned...

[jimgata]

Anyone really believe the earths climate has only changed in the last 50 years? Yes it has changed. It has changed ever since the earth was created and will continue to change as long as it exists. Of course the warmists will only be happy when everyone agrees that man can only cause this change and spend trillions on solving a problem of climate change, that will happen whather man exists or not.

[oragator1]

Anyone really believe the earths climate has only changed in the last 50 years? Yes it has changed. It has changed ever since the earth was created and will continue to change as long as it exists. Of course the warmists will only be happy when everyone agrees that man can only cause this change and spend trillions on solving a problem of climate change, that will happen whather man exists or not.

Who in the world ever claimed the earth's climate was static?
Just because there are other things affecting climate doesn't mean we can't affect it as well. That's like arguing we can't be causing forest fires, floods etc because nature has been causing them for eons. It's not a logical argument.

[GatorRade]

If science were to suddenly prove beyond reasonable doubt that AGW was real I don't think it would change the modus operandi of the Chinese one iota. On the other hand the United States would go into melt down (pun intended) with new regulations and taxes even while the Chinese went their merry polluting way.

Not sure I agree with this. At least we know that China has been way ahead of the US on "green" technology, including then already agreeing to a carbon emissions trading scheme.

China's green progress leaves US red-faced (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/12/china-green-plans-america)

[wygator]

Not sure I agree with this. At least we know that China has been way ahead of the US on "green" technology, including then already agreeing to a carbon emissions trading scheme.

China's green progress leaves US red-faced (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/apr/12/china-green-plans-america)

Bottom line is their C02 emissions (recently surpassing ours) and are growing rapidly. They are increasing their coal imports. China's green stuff is just window dressing.

[Row6]

Bottom line is their C02 emissions (recently surpassing ours) and are growing rapidly. They are increasing their coal imports. China's green stuff is just window dressing.

On a per capita basis we produce much more in CO2 emissions than China.

[OaktownGator]

I don't advocate any policy change specifically for AGW at this point, but I don't understand the attitude of sticking your head in the sand just because you think somebody else is just going to stick their head in he sand.

If something truly needs to be done, we should be leaders... not losers.

[wygator]

On a per capita basis we produce much more in CO2 emissions than China.

Not sure what your point is in that. Our productivity of goods and services for the world is greater than most anyone else, except now maybe China. Their fossil fuel use is increasing at nearly exponetial rates while ours has actually decreased the past few years.

Our decrease has been primarily due to the poor economy. Thanks Pres. Obama!!!

Here are the Top 10...note that India is also likely to be rapidly increasing their emissions in the near term.

Current CO2 emissions

The simplest and most common way to compare the emissions of countries is to add up all the fossil fuels burned and cement produced in each nation and convert that into CO2. According to 2011 data compiled by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, the top 10 emitters by this measure are:

1. China: 9697 million tonnes (MT) or 28.6%
2. US: 5420 MT or 16.0%
3. India: 1967 MT or 5.8%
4. Russia: 1829 MT or 5.4%
5. Japan: 1243 MT or 3.7%
6. Germany: 810 MT 2.4%
7. South Korea: 609 MT or 1.7%
8. Canada: 555 MT or 1.6%
9. Indonesia: 490 MT or 1.4%
10. Saudi Arabia: 464 MT or 1.4%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

[jimgata]

There is a helluva lot of things we can conrol but climate ain't one of them.
We can control fires that we cause and not what nature causes,we can control floods that are caused by man's creations, dam and levees, but we cannot control actions controlled by nature. If we can, how about controlling hurricanes , temperatures, rain and droughts?

[Row6]

Not sure what your point is in that. Our productivity of goods and services for the world is greater than most anyone else, except now maybe China. Their fossil fuel use is increasing at nearly exponetial rates while ours has actually decreased the past few years.

Our decrease has been primarily due to the poor economy. Thanks Pres. Obama!!!

Here are the Top 10...note that India is also likely to be rapidly increasing their emissions in the near term.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

You can make of the facts what you will. The fact is that we are by far the largest emitters of CO2 on a per capita basis, which means we likely have more room for improvement without reentering the dark ages.

BTW, and since you couldn't resist a throw away and irrelevant line, here's another fact - Obama inherited the poor economy and has presided over it's improvement.

[jimgata]

The economy is like the climate, it runs in cycles.

[GatorRade]

Not sure what your point is in that. Our productivity of goods and services for the world is greater than most anyone else, except now maybe China. Their fossil fuel use is increasing at nearly exponetial rates while ours has actually decreased the past few years.

I'm with Row. Our per capita emissions are ridiculous high compared to China. Now this mostly because China is a very poor country, but they have a population that is four times that of the US. My point is for all the negatives that you can cite regarding China (and I think there are many), monetary commitment to decreasing emissions is simply not one of them.

[wargunfan]

On a per capita basis we produce much more in CO2 emissions than China.

The earth doesn't understand "per capita". Just give the Chinese time and they will make us look like pikers when measuring CO2 emissions. They have already polluted much of their land mass. Severe air pollution has already reached Mongolia and Western China

[GatorRade]

The earth doesn't understand "per capita". Just give the Chinese time and they will make us look like pikers when measuring CO2 emissions. They have already polluted much of their land mass. Severe air pollution has already reached Mongolia and Western China

If this the road you want to go down, then I'm guessing you think the Vatican is most green country, since their emissions are so low? In the same vein, the Earth doesn't understand "China" either. Emissions are global.

For me, the per capita number is paramount, because we don't regulate reproduction (though China sort of does, so you might want to rethink your position). We regulate emissions (well, we don't do that either with CO2, but China might).

[G8trGr8t]

The major problem I see here is that most people on this board have no clue to the basic principles of thermodynamics...the climate is changing...be it natural or man made...it IS changing...I live in Colombia and for the last several years the rain is less each year...it is real guys...the question is what do we do about it...you are so concerned about the economic future of our children...yet you ignore the reality of climate change...I just don't understand the opposition to any real dialogue that our planet is indeed changing climate wise...I could give a rats a$$ about what political crap you adhere to...but we are in for a big challenge globally...stay tuned...

Is this the first time climate has changed? Remember the dust bowl? The debate isn't about whether cliimate changes, it is what causes the change.

[GatorRade]

Is this the first time climate has changed? Remember the dust bowl? The debate isn't about whether cliimate changes, it is what causes the change.

It is interesting that you bring up the dust bowl as an example, since this is one of the textbook examples of anthropogenic change.

[Gatorrick22]

Rand's philosophy is better suited for a world full of Vulcans in my opinion. One of my biggest issues with her is, what I see as, a failure to take into account how much part emotions have in shaping our being. Thus when I think of Rand the first word that comes to mind is "cold." This is the way I felt when reading both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as both were akin to reading technical manuals.

That's interesting considering that the liberals are the ones using so-called empirical evidence to try and trick us all into higher taxes.... to pay for all the other countries of the world that are polluting our "same" atmosphere.

It's kind of ironic.... Using (flawed) science to trick us emotionally.

[WESGATORS]

Emissions per capita doesn't mean anything significant; if we're evaluating a country vs. a country, it should be by area, not by population. That they mistreat much of their fellow citizens shouldn't be considered an excuse that permits them to pollute more. We wouldn't be doing better with pollution if we all of a sudden had a population boom and we refused to let these people be active participants in our society.

Go GATORS!
,WESGATORS

[g8orbill]

environmental whackos know no bounds when trying to prove their gw bullchit

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/johnransom/2013/01/21/caught-redhanded-on-climate-change-n1493559?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

[GatorRade]

all about a relatively minor event in Cali...meanwhile the largest by population country is experiencing record cold that is threatening their food supply but we have all this discussion about how warmth in US is proof positive of global warming and no discussion of record cold across China

Now we have a cold snap in the eastern US.

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/25/us/cold-weather/index.html
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/24/sandy-victims-left-out-in-cold-during-arctic-blast/
WashPost: http://blogs.wsj.com/metropolis/2013/01/23/weather-journal-its-getting-even-colder/
Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/us-usa-weather-idUSBRE90L0Q720130124
And there are several others.

You see what I am saying, Gr8t? It isn't necessarily that the US media only preferentially covers warm weather and not cold weather. It is probably just that the US media preferentially covers US weather events.

[g8trjax]

It's called the jet steam. When it stays north, U.S. has a mild year, when it dips down regularly, cold year. Pretty simple.

[neisgator]

The major problem I see here is that most people on this board have no clue to the basic principles of thermodynamics...the climate is changing...be it natural or man made...it IS changing...I live in Colombia and for the last several years the rain is less each year...it is real guys...the question is what do we do about it...you are so concerned about the economic future of our children...yet you ignore the reality of climate change...I just don't understand the opposition to any real dialogue that our planet is indeed changing climate wise...I could give a rats a$$ about what political crap you adhere to...but we are in for a big challenge globally...stay tuned...

Did the people from the middle ages know thermo?

[neisgator]

Who in the world ever claimed the earth's climate was static?
Just because there are other things affecting climate doesn't mean we can't affect it as well. That's like arguing we can't be causing forest fires, floods etc because nature has been causing them for eons. It's not a logical argument.

Umm, global warming, errrr, climate change freaks think it should be.

[demosthenes]

It is interesting that you bring up the dust bowl as an example, since this is one of the textbook examples of anthropogenic change.

The drought was controlled by ocean surface temperatures. Now if you're simply talking about the dust storms, yes, those were due human cultivation. The most interesting theory with anthropogenic climate change and the Dust Bowl is the theory that the dust storms exacerbated and prolonged the drought.

[jimgata]

It is amazing the warmist completely ignore the most powerful force in the universe-THE SUN!

[exiledgator]

It is amazing the warmist completely ignore the most powerful force in the universe-THE SUN!

They do?

[Gatorrick22]

It is amazing the warmist completely ignore the most powerful force in the universe-THE SUN!

What......the Chinese/Russian/Indian coal-burning plants?

[GatorRade]

They do?

I'm interested in this idea too. I mean, I have no idea what he means by "warmist", but I'd love to see one of these global climate models that do not include the solar inputs as a component.

[Dreamliner]

As it turns out 2012 was nowhere near the warmest year ever recorded globally. It must be because America is the Great Satan!

[fredsanford]

It is amazing the warmist completely ignore the most powerful force in the universe-THE SUN!

Our sun is far from the most powerful force in the universe. It's not even the most powerful sun.

[OaktownGator]

Our sun is far from the most powerful force in the universe. It's not even the most powerful sun.
True.

But solar radiation received on earth is certainly the biggest factor impacting our climate.

Regardless, that doesn't mean CO2 (and other atmospheric gas levels) don't have an impact. And we are demonstrably driving CO2 levels far higher than peaks over the past several hundred thousand years.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I'm interested in this idea too. I mean, I have no idea what he means by "warmist", but I'd love to see one of these global climate models that do not include the solar inputs as a component.

I think climate models all differ in how much they consider solar inputs.

From the NOAA;

Climate models can disagree on many results and projections due to natural variability, differences in forcing, and differences in feedbacks. Natural climate variability can be reduced by using an ensemble of simulations with slight changes in each, which produces an average result and reveals the response to forcing. However, forcings vary greatly among climate models. Forcings are the prime movers of climate change, and the main differences among models involve aerosols. The impact of aerosols on earth's energy balance is uncertain. Therefore, climate feedback to aerosols, such as existence and concentration of water vapor and clouds, differs because of this uncertainty in the parameterized processes.

and

Climate forcing has to do with the amount of energy we receive from the sun, and the amount of energy we radiate back into space. Variances in climate forcing are determined by physical influences on the atmosphere such as orbital and axial changes as well as the amount of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.

[GatorRade]

I think climate models all differ in how much they consider solar inputs.

Certainly there is variation. But I think you and I would agree that they all at least include some factor for solar inputs. Jim's post seems to imply that climate scientists don't even recognize that the sun is related to Earth's climate. (Of course, if that were true, I wonder how he would know it was?)

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Certainly there is variation. But I think you and I would agree that they all at least include some factor for solar inputs. Jim's post seems to imply that climate scientists don't even recognize that the sun is related to Earth's climate. (Of course, if that were true, I wonder how he would know it was?)

Agreed. The VARY GREATLY is the interesting part.

[jimgata]

Has every scientist that has rendered a decision on global warming actually made individual studies on global warming ? The vast majority probably have not and are just using someone else's data. All it takes is for a few scientists voicing an opinion and the same old follow the leader syndrome sets in, as is the case with most of the media, who wouldn't recognize a true fact for their bias. The same holds true for all the warmers.
Calling all those ignorant who question global warming as caused by man is ridiculous. What is ignorant, is accepting anything as fact without questioning it.
I will use the libs favorite expression when they say something wrong, I misspoke when I referred the sun being the most powerful force in the universe, of course those that think for themself, knew what I was referring.
When global warming is defended on tv, which by the way is most peoples source of news, the sun is very rarely mentioned, it is always caused by man. The sun is only mentioned with any regularity by those questioning man made global warming.

[ATLitigator]

Sorry, but i did not want to read 18 pages of BS to see if someone pointed out this very important detail...warmest year in U.S..... U.S weather records date back to 1895

so the warmest year in the last 117 years....

the planet is millions of years old....10,000,000 for example

so, scientifically this is not even a relevant or sufficent sample size to have any scientific value

next

[GatorRade]

Agreed. The VARY GREATLY is the interesting part.

Well, "greatly" is a relative term, so it is sort of meaningless. The different BCS computers would probably say that they vary greatly as well, but they really all work very similarly in my view.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Well, "greatly" is a relative term, so it is sort of meaningless.

No. This is pretty emphatic statement coming from a scientific publication.

[oragator1]

I have been clear I support the vast majority of scientists on GW, but it is a fair criticism that the models treat solar effects very differently. I have seen numbers anywhere from 10% to 50% - that's a pretty wide range.

[GatorJeff]

Sorry, but i did not want to read 18 pages of BS to see if someone pointed out this very important detail...warmest year in U.S..... U.S weather records date back to 1895

so the warmest year in the last 117 years....

the planet is millions of years old....10,000,000 for example

so, scientifically this is not even a relevant or sufficent sample size to have any scientific value

next

Great observation, Nero.

[Juggernautz]

indeed.

[GatorRade]

No. This is pretty emphatic statement coming from a scientific publication.

No, it is a relative statement. It cannot be "emphatic" or "meager" or anything without context. It is relative. I know a couple who says that opposites attract. One of them is in english literature and the other in french literature. That's right, from her view, these are opposites. See what I am saying? It doesn't matter who made the statement; it is meaningless until we get into the models and see what they do.

[neisgator]

Fake Global Warming Believers(FGWB) amuse me.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

No, it is a relative statement. It cannot be "emphatic" or "meager" or anything without context. It is relative. I know a couple who says that opposites attract. One of them is in english literature and the other in french literature. That's right, from her view, these are opposites. See what I am saying? It doesn't matter who made the statement; it is meaningless until we get into the models and see what they do.

It is telling that two people on different sides of this issue debate this kind of peripheral interpretation of a central issue.

Absent a complete understanding by of all the factors in all the models by both of us, we will just have to disagree on our interpretations.

[GatorRade]

It is telling that two people on different sides of this issue debate this kind of peripheral interpretation of a central issue.

Maybe, I guess.

Absent a complete understanding by of all the factors in all the models by both of us, we will just have to disagree on our interpretations.

Absolutely. Except, I don't see why we would even disagree, rather than just agree that neither of us really knows how to interpret it.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Absolutely. Except, I don't see why we would even disagree, rather than just agree that neither of us really knows how to interpret it.

Other than it is a scientific journal where words are usually parsed very carefully. The phrase "significant difference" means very specific things when described in a scientific journal. It means the difference between minor and major.

The reason I am pushing this issue is that there are a number of skeptic scientists that have often asserted than in some, if not many, of the AGW models, forcing due to solar impacts are only a minor input.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Here is a good discussion of the IPCC model compared to one that uses a much different set of assumptions; (http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/1/21_What_Drives_Global_Warming_-_Update.html)

The two models, IPCC model and atmospheric system model, use two very different modeling approaches: theory-driven vs data-driven modeling. The IPCC model is based essentially on AGW theory by emission of greenhouse gases, namely CO2, the presented atmospheric system model on the other hand is a CO2-free prediction model. It is described by 5 other variables. The IPCC model shows a prediction accuracy of 7% and the atmospheric system model an accuracy of 75% for the same most recent 21 months of time…

The climate system is a complex system that consists of a number of variables, which are connected interdependently, nonlinearly and dynamically and where it is not clear, which are the causes and which are the effects. The simplistic linear cause-effect relationship “more atmospheric CO2 = higher temperatures” the IPCC model is based on is not an adequate tool to describe the complexity of the atmosphere sufficiently.

[mdgator05]

Other than it is a scientific journal where words are usually parsed very carefully. The phrase "significant difference" means very specific things when described in a scientific journal. It means the difference between minor and major.

The reason I am pushing this issue is that there are a number of skeptic scientists that have often asserted than in some, if not many, of the AGW models, forcing due to solar impacts are only a minor input.

They said "significant difference?" I thought the phrase was "vary greatly." You are right, "significant difference" means something very specific in stats. But I didn't see them say that in the quote you provided.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

They said "significant difference?" I thought the phrase was "vary greatly." You are right, "significant difference" means something very specific in stats. But I didn't see them say that in the quote you provided.

My bad then. What does "vary greatly" mean to you?

[mdgator05]

My bad then. What does "vary greatly" mean to you?

As Rade said, it is a purely subjective term. The general definition would mean high variance, but there is no definitive definition of high variance. It is really in the eye of the researcher.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Which is why I proffered this;


Here is a good discussion of the IPCC model compared to one that uses a much different set of assumptions;

Quote:
The two models, IPCC model and atmospheric system model, use two very different modeling approaches: theory-driven vs data-driven modeling. The IPCC model is based essentially on AGW theory by emission of greenhouse gases, namely CO2, the presented atmospheric system model on the other hand is a CO2-free prediction model. It is described by 5 other variables. The IPCC model shows a prediction accuracy of 7% and the atmospheric system model an accuracy of 75% for the same most recent 21 months of time…

The climate system is a complex system that consists of a number of variables, which are connected interdependently, nonlinearly and dynamically and where it is not clear, which are the causes and which are the effects. The simplistic linear cause-effect relationship “more atmospheric CO2 = higher temperatures” the IPCC model is based on is not an adequate tool to describe the complexity of the atmosphere sufficiently.

[wygator]

No, it is a relative statement. It cannot be "emphatic" or "meager" or anything without context. It is relative. I know a couple who says that opposites attract. One of them is in english literature and the other in french literature. That's right, from her view, these are opposites. See what I am saying? It doesn't matter who made the statement; it is meaningless until we get into the models and see what they do.

Wow, Rade! That is some fine nuance!!

[ATLitigator]

Sorry, but i did not want to read 18 pages of BS to see if someone pointed out this very important detail...warmest year in U.S..... U.S weather records date back to 1895

so the warmest year in the last 117 years....

the planet is millions of years old....10,000,000 for example

so, scientifically this is not even a relevant or sufficent sample size to have any scientific value

next

i dont know why people are getting into a scientific argument about this report. there is no scientific value in this sample size...mountains out of mole hills

[Lawdog88]

It's abnormally hot in No Name City today.

What that means is, I wore a light shirt.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History


ttp://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screenhunter_157-apr-26-06-02.jpg?w=640&h=428


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/second-coldest-start-to-spring-in-us-history/

[jimgata]

Artic ice is the same as 200 years ago.

[jdrgator]

Second Coldest Start To Spring In US History


ttp://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/screenhunter_157-apr-26-06-02.jpg?w=640&h=428


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/second-coldest-start-to-spring-in-us-history/

It this another example of you practicing climate science skepticism, MJ? :)

Who is Steven Goddard, anyway?

[Dreamliner]

Crusty vanguards of an aging religion hanging on.

[gatorman_07732]

Crusty vanguards of an aging religion hanging on.

Did you know somewhere else it was the coldest year in history?

[neisgator]

Here in Quincy IL we havent had spring yet. The past 3 weeks we have had one day of average temps, every other day WAY below average. Prior to that, the winter had been way below normal as well...Highs not even getting to where normal lows are...

[sappanama]

people all over are confused by global warming and record melting snow packs creating flooding in alot of places. this global warming is hard to figure, is it hotter and drier or colder with more rain and snow?

[dadx4]

It's all BS...It's called the SUN.

[fredsanford]

It's all BS...It's called the SUN.

Your knowledge of science is impressive.

Ever sail to the end of the earth and fall off?

[g8orbill]

spring of 2013 start 2nd coldest in US History, behind 1975

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/second-coldest-start-to-spring-in-us-history/

[fredsanford]

It's called climate change: winter is too warm, spring is too cold, summer is blazing hot.

[g8orbill]

it is called Mother Nature

[GatorRade]

it is called Mother Nature

If you don't think scientists have any power to determine when things are abnormal, why do you think that you have the power to determine when thing are normal, bill?

[GatorRade]

Artic ice is the same as 200 years ago.

If you are going to predetermine that climate is not changing regardless of any facts, you should at least use some data...any data...other than Arctic sea ice, which is perhaps the absolute most clear marker of warming. Hundreds of real scientific studies on Arctic sea ice, but you find one anecdotal account, and that is the one you bring here as fact.

Jim, data aren't true because they agree with what you already believe. Otherwise, there would be no point to getting data.

[RealGatorFan]

Correlation is a basis for determining causation.

So what sort of science would convince you? We have macro-level evidence, the correlation to which you referred. We have micro-level evidence, as the greenhouse effect is pretty well established. So what type of evidence would convince you?

So, why was the 1890s the baseline for all records? It's taken nearly 120 years for many of those records to fall. There was no green house gases back then due to high population, and the Industrial Age wouldn't start for another 10 to 15 years. Considering we only have data starting from the 1890s we have nothing else to compare to and man has man around for at least 2,000 years. There is still the possible Cat 6 hurricane that hit the Florida panhandle in the 15th century. Without devices and logging we have today, it's conjecture. Yet, we know that Santa Rosa Island was created from that hurricane, which wiped out the spanish colony and the creek indians. It was decades before anyone came back to Pensacola.

[OaktownGator]

So, why was the 1890s the baseline for all records? It's taken nearly 120 years for many of those records to fall. There was no green house gases back then due to high population, and the Industrial Age wouldn't start for another 10 to 15 years. Considering we only have data starting from the 1890s we have nothing else to compare to and man has man around for at least 2,000 years. There is still the possible Cat 6 hurricane that hit the Florida panhandle in the 15th century. Without devices and logging we have today, it's conjecture. Yet, we know that Santa Rosa Island was created from that hurricane, which wiped out the spanish colony and the creek indians. It was decades before anyone came back to Pensacola.
We've only been taking temperature measurements since the 1890s, so that is the only directly measured data we have.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4839557256905838&pid=15.1

But we do have interpolated data going back millions of years. And for the past several hundred thousand years, we've had temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels running in cycles where both temperature and CO2 levels stick within certain ranges... until now, when CO2 levels are 40% higher than previous peaks, and rising very rapidly.

I believe solar radiation is the biggest driver in temperature patterns, but this dramatic rise in CO2 as compared to the past several hundred thousand years, and the correlation between CO2 and temperatures is what has scientists concerned about global warming.

BTW, the graph below is a few years old. CO2 levels are now literally "off the chart", and rising very rapidly. They'll be double previous peak levels within 100 years. To the degree CO2 can drive increases in temperature, our activities will definitely be responsible. On the flip side, we appear to be due for a long term decline in temperatures to a major ice age. It could be that an increase in CO2 levels might help offset that.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

[PSGator66]

Has Obama figured out a way to create a new tax associated with this global heating? IF not I am certain one is in the making.

[neisgator]

It's called climate change: winter is too warm, spring is too cold, summer is blazing hot.

It's called PMGP. Pathetically Moving Goal Posts.

Welcome to the biggest scam ever after Social Security.

[neisgator]

:wave:people all over are confused by global warming and record melting snow packs creating flooding in alot of places. this global warming is hard to figure, is it hotter and drier or colder with more rain and snow?

Yep sure is.

The Deadliest Catch guys weren't "suffering" from melting ice caps last season.

[Wormwood56]

Who fed you that B.S.?

Perhaps Gray got it from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. You know, those paragons of scientific objectivity...:wink:

[The_Graygator]

Who fed you that B.S.?

I suppose all those same "majority" of scientists libs use to claim the world is warming from man-made causes? lol

[The_Graygator]

I'm still waiting to figure out how taxing us more will cool the Earth. :laugh:

[oldgator]

1. To refer to a single year as proof of, or proof against warming is stupid.
2. There are numerous earth cycles that affect climate(El Nino, El Nina, the gradual change of the earth axis has resulted in periods of ice age, etc)
3. Thing is, can we(the U.S. as well as the world) afford to not take measures to protect our societies against climate changes, weather disasters....regardless of whether such events are solely natural or whether man has had influence in the matter?
4. America can continue on as the global warning naysayers propose and not do anything in regard to our nations policy to address issue related to whether. If we keep that up there will be other major disasters related to hurricanes, flooding, etc whether there is man-caused global warming or not.
5. Or our country can take a stance on weather related issues based on the following-
---investigate further whether or not man caused global warming is happening or even possible.
---regardless of the global warming issue our nation can certainly take measures to harden our nation's infrastructure, etc to decrease the damage that can occur from hurricanes, flooding, etc...this would help create jobs as well as strengthen our nation.

What is a disgrace in the matter of the global warming debate is that both sides of the debate are driven by self interest rather than scientific accuracy.

[jimgata]

What absolute facts have the warmest brought to the table? It's not those that are doubting man's contributions to whatever warming there is, it is the warmists that twist every scrape of evidence they can gather, whether factual or not, to try to make their case.
Of course it seems the left is more obsessed with the warming theory, but I guess that is understandable, because gullibility is a trait of the left.

[neisgator]

1. To refer to a single year as proof of, or proof against warming is stupid.
2. There are numerous earth cycles that affect climate(El Nino, El Nina, the gradual change of the earth axis has resulted in periods of ice age, etc)
3. Thing is, can we(the U.S. as well as the world) afford to not take measures to protect our societies against climate changes, weather disasters....regardless of whether such events are solely natural or whether man has had influence in the matter?
4. America can continue on as the global warning naysayers propose and not do anything in regard to our nations policy to address issue related to whether. If we keep that up there will be other major disasters related to hurricanes, flooding, etc whether there is man-caused global warming or not.
5. Or our country can take a stance on weather related issues based on the following-
---investigate further whether or not man caused global warming is happening or even possible.
---regardless of the global warming issue our nation can certainly take measures to harden our nation's infrastructure, etc to decrease the damage that can occur from hurricanes, flooding, etc...this would help create jobs as well as strengthen our nation.

What is a disgrace in the matter of the global warming debate is that both sides of the debate are driven by self interest rather than scientific accuracy.

Number 1 is my favorite...since that's EXACTLY what 98% of the GW Loons do.
Number 4 is funny too...Do nothing?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

It this another example of you practicing climate science skepticism, MJ? :)

I remembered this thread about last year and this new information seemed about as relevant as the information the OP shared

Who is Steven Goddard, anyway?

Google is your friend?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

this global warming is hard to figure, is it hotter and drier or colder with more rain and snow?

Yes

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

If you don't think scientists have any power to determine when things are abnormal, why do you think that you have the power to determine when thing are normal, bill?

That really IS the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

What are the natural causes of climate change?

It is notable that there are no widely agreed upon sets of principles for natural climate change. In fact, many climate scientist say almost no work has been done in this area. Most of the work and money in climate change science goes to AGW. Which I have always found to be curious. How can scientist profess to even hope to understand man impact on the climate when they don't even understand the natural causes?

Follow the money, I guess?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

BTW, the graph below is a few years old. CO2 levels are now literally "off the chart", and rising very rapidly. They'll be double previous peak levels within 100 years. To the degree CO2 can drive increases in temperature, our activities will definitely be responsible. On the flip side, we appear to be due for a long term decline in temperatures to a major ice age. It could be that an increase in CO2 levels might help offset that.

To your point;

Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. Some experts warn that a change in the climate may affect the ambitious projects for the exploration of the Arctic that have been launched by many countries.

Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.

"Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth".

Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.

"Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century".


Read more: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_22/Cooling-in-the-Arctic-what-to-expect/

[Swampmaster]

to cool the earth, should I buy a fisker or volt?

[GatorRade]

That really IS the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

What are the natural causes of climate change?

It is notable that there are no widely agreed upon sets of principles for natural climate change. In fact, many climate scientist say almost no work has been done in this area. Most of the work and money in climate change science goes to AGW. Which I have always found to be curious. How can scientist profess to even hope to understand man impact on the climate when they don't even understand the natural causes?

Follow the money, I guess?

I have to disagree here. Who on Earth would say that no work goes into the "natural" causes of climate change? Look at the parameters of any climate model, and you'll see many more factors than "human CO2". Is anthropogenic CO2 in there? Of course it is. But that doesn't mean that the other dozens of factors don't exist. No scientist would assume they can understand the impact of CO2 without studying the impact of solar radiation, volcanoes, precipiation, biogeochemical cycling, Earth's radiation, sea ice, etc.

I've linked this several times on here, but it is a good overview of our understanding of climate factors: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I have to disagree here. Who on Earth would say that no work goes into the "natural" causes of climate change? Look at the parameters of any climate model, and you'll see many more factors than "human CO2". Is anthropogenic CO2 in there? Of course it is. But that doesn't mean that the other dozens of factors don't exist. No scientist would assume they can understand the impact of CO2 without studying the impact of solar radiation, volcanoes, precipiation, biogeochemical cycling, Earth's radiation, sea ice, etc.

I've linked this several times on here, but it is a good overview of our understanding of climate factors: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-1-1.html

Dr. Spencer (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/) would be one;

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, “What else COULD it be?” Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far.

Dr Curry (http://judithcurry.com/?s=natural+causes+of+climate+change)

would be another

earch Results for: natural causes of climate change
Meta-uncertainty in the determination of climate sensitivity
Posted on April 17, 2013 | 637 Comments

by Judith Curry Two heavyweight climate scientists have published very different ideas about how much the Earth is going to warm in the coming decades. – Washington Weather Gang

→ 637 Comments

Posted in Sensitivity & feedbacks
Predictions of climate change impacts on fisheries can be a mirage
Posted on April 14, 2013 | 116 Comments

by Judith Curry A novel method for causal inference has been motivated by . . . sardines.

→ 116 Comments

Posted in Causation, Climate change impacts, Policy
The Forest 2006 climate sensitivity study and misprocessing of data – an update
Posted on April 10, 2013 | 435 Comments

by Nicholas Lewis Some of you may recall my guest post at Climate Etc last June, here, questioning whether the results of the Forest et al., 2006, (F06) study on estimating climate sensitivity might have arisen from misprocessing of data.

→ 435 Comments

Posted in Sensitivity & feedbacks
Macroweather, not climate, is what you expect
Posted on January 21, 2013 | 196 Comments

by Shaun Lovejoy When the International Meteorological Organization defined the first climate normal from 1900 to 1930, the belief was that the climate was constant, and that the newly defined climate ‘normal’ would give a close approximation to the climate.

→ 196 Comments

Posted in Attribution
Whither (wither?) climate science?
Posted on November 20, 2012 | 679 Comments

by Judith Curry The title for this post comes from a recent presentation by Michael Morgan, Director of the Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences Division at NSF.

→ 679 Comments

Posted in Policy
Apportioning natural and forced components in the Arctic amplification
Posted on August 23, 2012 | 132 Comments

by Judith Curry These results support the notion that the enhanced wintertime warming over high northern latitudes from 1965 to 2000 was mainly a reflection of unforced variability of the coupled climate system. Some of the simulations exhibit an enhancement … Continue reading →

→ 132 Comments

Posted in Attribution
Explaining (?) extreme events of 2011 from a climate perspective
Posted on July 12, 2012 | 170 Comments

by Judith Curry The latest issue of the Bulletin of American Meteorological Society has published a collection of papers that illustrate different methodologies for attributing causes of recent extreme weather events. Attribution of extreme events shortly after their occurrence stretches … Continue reading →

[GatorRade]

What absolute facts have the warmest brought to the table?

I'm not sure what constitutes and "absolute fact" or who "warmists" are, but years of scientific study have brought us loads of empirical data on Earth's climate.

It's not those that are doubting man's contributions to whatever warming there is, it is the warmists that twist every scrape of evidence they can gather, whether factual or not, to try to make their case.

This is how basically every argument is fought on here from all angles. But what you might not realize is that the rantings of a bunch of non-technical politically slanted Gator fans doesn't amount to the highest form of climate data criticism. You should attend a climate conference or at least watch one on Youtube. You'll get a better idea of how the real science works rather this inane "This is the warmest year in the US!" or "Climate changed before man!" absurdity.

Of course it seems the left is more obsessed with the warming theory, but I guess that is understandable, because gullibility is a trait of the left.

This is just absolute silliness, jim. If you think there is a hair's worth of difference between the right and the left in terms of what you call "gullibility", you are in no position to be arguing science. Which group denies the science of evolution? Which group fought against the smoking-cancer link? Which group was convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Almost everyone believes what they want to believe. Don't forget how absolutely convinced you were that Romney would win the election based on one piece of data on independent voters, when surrounded by mountains of contrasting data. There is a lesson there.

If you are serious about eliminating bias in order to get closer to the truth, I'd recommend a couple of sources, Enhancing our Truth Orientation (http://hanson.gmu.edu/moretrue.pdf) and The Science of Why we Don't Believe in Science (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney). Just because someone of the left is biased doesn't mean that those on the right aren't.

[GatorRade]

Dr. Spencer (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/) would be one;



Dr Curry (http://judithcurry.com/?s=natural+causes+of+climate+change)

would be another

I am not sure what we are looking at with Curry's blog, as it was a just a search with tons of posts returned, but I am not sure what makes a man of your intellect trust someone like Roy Spencer.

Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[24][25] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)))

This is the guy that you turn to when you suspect climate scientists are biased? Come on Michael, if you going to be getting skeptical on scientific sources, this guy needs to be the first dude we jettison. If he isn't, we can't really pretend to be serious about the truth.

Again, the link I sent you has some good info on this topic.

[jimgata]

Gullibility can be defined as someone believing what someone says without any reason.
Some Russian scientists now claim we may be in 200 to 250 years of cooling. I assume they are wrong, because the only correct scientists are those that say man is responsible for any warming. Right?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I am not sure what we are looking at with Curry's blog, as it was a just a search with tons of posts returned, but I am not sure what makes a man of your intellect trust someone like Roy Spencer.

This is the guy that you turn to when you suspect climate scientists are biased? Come on Michael, if you going to be getting skeptical on scientific sources, this guy needs to be the first dude we jettison. If he isn't, we can't really pretend to be serious about the truth.

So, in your mind, the guy's religion beliefs should impact his ability to be a climate scientist? If so, I think that is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

But, if you insist, read some of the links from the Curry search. I think the discussions in those should help you understand the current uncertainty in climate science

There are a lot unknowns about natural climate change. The current debate on what caused the most recent decline is one such example. As is the discussion with Russian Scientist that insist we are headed for a period of global cooling.

http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_22/Cooling-in-the-Arctic-what-to-expect/

[GatorRade]

Gullibility can be defined as someone believing what someone says without any reason.
Some Russian scientists now claim we may be in 200 to 250 years of cooling. I assume they are wrong, because the only correct scientists are those that say man is responsible for any warming. Right?

I think you should re-read my post, jim. And again, if you are serious about answering your question, consult the links I provided.

[GatorRade]

So, in your mind, the guy's religion beliefs should impact his ability to be a climate scientist? If so, I think that is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

Let me get this straight. You, MichaelJoeWilliamson, who believes that virtually all climate scientists are biased or worse are a part of an elaborate hoax conspiracy, are accusing me, GatorRade, of intellectual dishonesty based on...me pointing to a link suggesting that one of your trusted sources is biased. Maybe you should read the quote again: ""Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". Pay special attention to the last part. Self-correcting is the term used.

You don't think that there is anything wrong with a scientist who researches climate change believing that the Earth is built to be inherently self-correcting?? You post skeptical blog post after skeptical blog post on here, rarely ever acknowledging primary sources and then only skeptical ones, gloss over a link that clearly shows that your "no natural sources research" hypothesis is incorrect, and then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty because I note that a source has a clear conflict of interest. First off, I don't appreciate the public accusation, but secondly, I believe that you just insulted the integrity of one of the posters who has been most honest with you on this debate. It simply makes no sense for you to disparage me at this point, when almost your entire argument is based off of alleged institutional bias.

Either research has gone into natural sources of climate variation or it hasn't. And it quite easy to show that it has.

[jdrgator]

I remembered this thread about last year and this new information seemed about as relevant as the information the OP shared



Google is your friend?


Yep, google is my friend. And it seems that it is a pseudonym for some random blogger who gets it wrong quite a bit. Then again, we call just post random links.

[jimgata]

In case anyone forgot. Sadam did have weapons of mass destruction at one time as he poisoned thousands of his own people.
Any link provided by someone to reinforce their opinion is only going to be written by someone they agree with and goes back to gullibility.
By the way as far back as 1923 some scientists were prodicting the artic was melting and in the 1800's climate change was destroying the planet.

[g8tr80]

The Earth has experienced some pretty dramatic events in its' lifetime. Really dramatic. it has shown to be self-correcting. But it takes a long time. Everything in this wild universe of ours takes a long time. A very long time. Suffice to say, the Earth will not "self correct" in our lifetime, or the lifetime of our children, or our childrens children. But it will self correct. and the time it takes will be normal.

[jdrgator]

The Earth has experienced some pretty dramatic events in its' lifetime. Really dramatic. it has shown to be self-correcting. But it takes a long time. Everything in this wild universe of ours takes a long time. A very long time. Suffice to say, the Earth will not "self correct" in our lifetime, or the lifetime of our children, or our childrens children. But it will self correct. and the time it takes will be normal.

And you know this how? Because you thought it?

[Itssaul]

Gullibility can be defined as someone believing what someone says without any reason.


This could be used against most religious people.

[GatorRade]

The Earth has experienced some pretty dramatic events in its' lifetime. Really dramatic. it has shown to be self-correcting. But it takes a long time. Everything in this wild universe of ours takes a long time. A very long time. Suffice to say, the Earth will not "self correct" in our lifetime, or the lifetime of our children, or our childrens children. But it will self correct. and the time it takes will be normal.

I am not sure the Earth has ever "self corrected". Earth started out as a planet with very little water on its surface, carbon in its crust, oxygen in its atmosphere, or life anywhere to be found. Today, the place is quite different. Earth used to be covered in fern-like plants, used to be home to giant reptiles, used to have giant mammals all over the place. Today, these Earths are gone, and they aren't likely to come back. Earth doesn't move back and forth between normal and abnormal. There is not even such thing as a "normal" Earth. It continually changes.

In fact, these continual changes are a big reason why this board is littered with threads like these. People have taken "The Earth continually changes" to mean "Humans cannot possibly affect Earth", but these are two very different statements.

[sappanama]

where is the correlation with inc T and CO2, the largest temp peaks in the last 300000 years appear to be widely divergent from reported co2 levels, so if there is temp increase and not just short term variation why would it be attributed to co2 when the previous peaks were not

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

[neisgator]

to cool the earth, should I buy a fisker or volt?

Then...there is that nasty "idea" that you will just shift the natural resource burden to the power grid...

[Row6]

The Earth has experienced some pretty dramatic events in its' lifetime. Really dramatic. it has shown to be self-correcting. But it takes a long time. Everything in this wild universe of ours takes a long time. A very long time. Suffice to say, the Earth will not "self correct" in our lifetime, or the lifetime of our children, or our childrens children. But it will self correct. and the time it takes will be normal.

There is no "correct" climate. It is always changing and will always change until the sun burns out. All that matters to humans is that it not change in a way harmful to our survival on it. That means that it change slowly - so we can adjust - and in ways that doesn't harm agriculture, water supplies, and increased temperature extremes which could make certain areas inhabitable.

[g8orbill]

If you don't think scientists have any power to determine when things are abnormal, why do you think that you have the power to determine when thing are normal, bill?

I do not think the science on GW is reliable at all

[g8tr80]

I am not sure the Earth has ever "self corrected". Earth started out as a planet with very little water on its surface, carbon in its crust, oxygen in its atmosphere, or life anywhere to be found. Today, the place is quite different. Earth used to be covered in fern-like plants, used to be home to giant reptiles, used to have giant mammals all over the place. Today, these Earths are gone, and they aren't likely to come back. Earth doesn't move back and forth between normal and abnormal. There is not even such thing as a "normal" Earth. It continually changes.

In fact, these continual changes are a big reason why this board is littered with threads like these. People have taken "The Earth continually changes" to mean "Humans cannot possibly affect Earth", but these are two very different statements.

60 million years ago a meteor the size of Manhattan (I believe) struck the Earth literally blowing a hole in the atmosphere, blocking out the sun for years and years and killed pert near everything on the planet. I may be in the minority, but that in my estimation was a pretty cataclysmic event. It took a few hundred thousand year to self correct, but the Earth eventually got there.

That's what I'm basing my opinion on.

[Row6]

I do not think the science on GW is reliable at all

Every relevant and reputable scientific organization in the world thinks it is. Tough choice for those keeping score on what to believe.

[rajinGator]

This is great news! So, so many are enjoying mild to balmy weather. Very happy for everyone and makes me wanna break out in this song, and oh my what a good one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ahhmiuyko0

[Row6]

Let me get this straight. You, MichaelJoeWilliamson, who believes that virtually all climate scientists are biased or worse are a part of an elaborate hoax conspiracy, are accusing me, GatorRade, of intellectual dishonesty based on...me pointing to a link suggesting that one of your trusted sources is biased. Maybe you should read the quote again: ""Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting". Pay special attention to the last part. Self-correcting is the term used.

You don't think that there is anything wrong with a scientist who researches climate change believing that the Earth is built to be inherently self-correcting?? You post skeptical blog post after skeptical blog post on here, rarely ever acknowledging primary sources and then only skeptical ones, gloss over a link that clearly shows that your "no natural sources research" hypothesis is incorrect, and then you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty because I note that a source has a clear conflict of interest. First off, I don't appreciate the public accusation, but secondly, I believe that you just insulted the integrity of one of the posters who has been most honest with you on this debate. It simply makes no sense for you to disparage me at this point, when almost your entire argument is based off of alleged institutional bias.

Either research has gone into natural sources of climate variation or it hasn't. And it quite easy to show that it has.

MJW believes with all his heart and soul anything that about 3 scientists say on the subject while ignoring what the rest of them say, and then swallows and regurgitates uncritically on TH anything he picks up from blogs run by lawyers and weathermen who spew the "skeptical" line. Skeptical of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field that is, while they come to their own conclusions while playing basement scientist.

[fredsanford]

MJW believes with all his heart and soul anything that about 3 scientists say on the subject while ignoring what the rest of them say, and then swallows and regurgitates uncritically on TH anything he picks up from blogs run by lawyers and weathermen who spew the "skeptical" line. Skeptical of the overwhelming majority of experts in the field that is, while they come to their own conclusions while playing basement scientist.

Why would the fine folks at the Exxon/Mobil Science Department lie?

[neisgator]

Why would the fine folks at the Exxon/Mobil Science Department lie?

I will answer that right after you answer:

Now why would a scientist, who makes ALL of his money "chasing" FAKE global warming lie?

The scientists HAVE to keep up the lie.

The password is:

funding(see: way of life)

[jdrgator]

I will answer that right after you answer:

Now why would a scientist, who makes ALL of his money "chasing" FAKE global warming lie?

The scientists HAVE to keep up the lie.

The password is:

funding(see: way of life)

And that funding goes to actually carrying out the study. , which is actually really expensive. But believe it or not, these scientists, many if not most of whom are on university faculty somewhere, are already being funded in the form of salary, like grants are not contingent on what they find. They also teach and do service. But here again, while they certainly get paid for their actual work, most of the grant does not go to the individual researcher (or co-researchers if there is multiple PIs). It goes to the actual research, to include hiring of graduate students, or hiring of contract researchers, funding the collection of the data to include instrumentation etc.., and then a chunk of the direct funds goes to the university itself, plus in many grants, the university will also receive indirect funds (on federal grants).

Unlike say a private think tank, or research organization, or corporation, where the research can much more be directly influenced by the funds because norms of academic freedom do not apply as they do in universities, there is much more of a chance that such research reflects the ideology of the organization. This isn't to say that all science at universities it bias free--because it isn't. We are after all human and bias might be our first condition. But the norms and even rules that govern peer review and academic freedom, and open debate can have a much needed counter-balance to such biases. It's not perfect, but to suggest that academic research is just some unfettered money-making scheme is nonsense. It's a bias on your part to defend a position in which you seem to have no real knowledge about but plenty of preconceptions.

[neisgator]

And that funding goes to actually carrying out the study. , which is actually really expensive. But believe it or not, these scientists, many if not most of whom are on university faculty somewhere, are already being funded in the form of salary, like grants are not contingent on what they find. They also teach and do service. But here again, while they certainly get paid for their actual work, most of the grant does not go to the individual researcher (or co-researchers if there is multiple PIs). It goes to the actual research, to include hiring of graduate students, or hiring of contract researchers, funding the collection of the data to include instrumentation etc.., and then a chunk of the direct funds goes to the university itself, plus in many grants, the university will also receive indirect funds (on federal grants).

Unlike say a private think tank, or research organization, or corporation, where the research can much more be directly influenced by the funds because norms of academic freedom do not apply as they do in universities, there is much more of a chance that such research reflects the ideology of the organization. This isn't to say that all science at universities it bias free--because it isn't. We are after all human and bias might be our first condition. But the norms and even rules that govern peer review and academic freedom, and open debate can have a much needed counter-balance to such biases. It's not perfect, but to suggest that academic research is just some unfettered money-making scheme is nonsense. It's a bias on your part to defend a position in which you seem to have no real knowledge about but plenty of preconceptions.

Seriously, I would like to invite you to the real world...

[g8orbill]

Every relevant and reputable scientific organization in the world thinks it is. Tough choice for those keeping score on what to believe.

are you sure about that row? I guess they are only relevent and reputable if they say GW is for real. Damned all that faked research to make sure they still get the money

[jdrgator]

Seriously, I would like to invite you to the real world...

How much time have you spent on a university faculty doing research? How many grant proposals have you reviewed? How many have you written? How much research have you conducted? But you are in the real world, so you just know, right.

You are quick with quips and accusations, laughably short on any facts and understanding.

[Gatorrick22]

More scientific evidence of global warming.


"scientists from the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., announced Tuesday. The past year smashed the previous record for the warmest year, which was 1998.

The average temperature for 2012 was 55.3 degrees, 3.2 degrees above the 20th century average, and 1 degree above 1998."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/01/08/record-warm-year-2012/1817841/

You mean more anecdotal nonsense from the commie controlled UN..

[neisgator]

How much time have you spent on a university faculty doing research? How many grant proposals have you reviewed? How many have you written? How much research have you conducted? But you are in the real world, so you just know, right.

You are quick with quips and accusations, laughably short on any facts and understanding.

Yep, I am in the real world. And you aren't. That's what I said. And, in this case, it is a fact.

These scientists are paid to write/publish crap. It's called their meal ticket.
It isn't rocket science. Pun intended.

[jdrgator]

Yep, I am in the real world. And you aren't. That's what I said. And, in this case, it is a fact.

These scientists are paid to write/publish crap. It's called their meal ticket.
It isn't rocket science. Pun intended.

Like I said, quick with a quip and short on any facts. Figured you'd come back with nothing.

[Gatorrick22]

Like I said, quick with a quip and short on any facts. Figured you'd come back with nothing.

It's warm today must be global warning - signed: Every sappy lamb Leftists waiting for the slaughter.

[jimgata]

If someone agrees with you, they are relevant. if they don't, they are charlatans. Right?

[Gatorrick22]

It's not so much the nonsense of Man Made Global Warning as much as it's the solution our commie/Leftists have for it. They want the U.S., only, out of the 5 nations that produce the most greenhouse gasses to be taxed for it.

No other country needs to change a thing, yet somehow that's going to fix Global Warming?

That... is asinine beyond belief.

[neisgator]

Like I said, quick with a quip and short on any facts. Figured you'd come back with nothing.


You are right...in the upside down world of liberal land, common sense is "nothing"

[sappanama]

How much time have you spent on a university faculty doing research? How many grant proposals have you reviewed? How many have you written? How much research have you conducted? But you are in the real world, so you just know, right.

You are quick with quips and accusations, laughably short on any facts and understanding.

what type of research are you referring to? which research is more biased, climate, physics, chemistry? to me it, at this time, has more in common with social sciences like sociology, criminology, history, which are more subjective and opinion based but that is probably just me and my own bias. how do you possibly come up with a hypothesis and form a experiment that can deal with the millions of variables, at best it is a review with wild ass guesses based on interpretations of severely limited/lacking data in a literal millionth or billionth of a second of time. it seems almost like looking at the sea level at high tide on tuesday morning and claiming the sea is rising and you better move to idaho cuz if the sea came up 3 feet in 8 hours it will cover florida by friday. in my lifetime i have lived through both a certain ice age and a certain catastrophic waring with rising seas covering florida without any noticeable effect on my life, or yours i'll bet. the process of writing a grant proposal is certainly a learned art, but it is by no means rocket science and is often written by grant writers who are not the researchers, then reviewed and possibly tweaked by the researcher, which is why i ask what type you are referring to because my experience is limited to a specific medical field and it may very well be different in your field.

[Row6]

are you sure about that row? I guess they are only relevent and reputable if they say GW is for real. Damned all that faked research to make sure they still get the money

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

[Row6]

what type of research are you referring to? which research is more biased, climate, physics, chemistry? to me it, at this time, has more in common with social sciences like sociology, criminology, history, which are more subjective and opinion based but that is probably just me and my own bias. how do you possibly come up with a hypothesis and form a experiment that can deal with the millions of variables, at best it is a review with wild ass guesses based on interpretations of severely limited/lacking data in a literal millionth or billionth of a second of time. it seems almost like looking at the sea level at high tide on tuesday morning and claiming the sea is rising and you better move to idaho cuz if the sea came up 3 feet in 8 hours it will cover florida by friday. in my lifetime i have lived through both a certain ice age and a certain catastrophic waring with rising seas covering florida without any noticeable effect on my life, or yours i'll bet. the process of writing a grant proposal is certainly a learned art, but it is by no means rocket science and is often written by grant writers who are not the researchers, then reviewed and possibly tweaked by the researcher, which is why i ask what type you are referring to because my experience is limited to a specific medical field and it may very well be different in your field.

You didn't live through a certain ice age. Most climate research done in the 70s showed global warming, not cooling.

http:// http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/PeerReviewedPapersComparingGlobalWarmingAndCooling In1970s.jpg

[Row6]

You are right...in the upside down world of liberal land, common sense is "nothing"


Science is neither liberal or conservative. You don't know what you're taking about again.

[Row6]

You are right...in the upside down world of liberal land, common sense is "nothing"


Science is neither liberal or conservative. You don't know what you're taking about again.

[jimgata]

Science is constantly changing. At one time the scientists ,of their day, thought the earth was flat , the earth was the center of the universe and many scientists were involved in alchemy.

[Row6]

Science is constantly changing. At one time the scientists ,of their day, thought the earth was flat , the earth was the center of the universe and many scientists were involved in alchemy.



And......?


Do you think that gives you license to believe whatever fits your agenda?

[jimgata]

I have a right or license to believe any damn thing I please.

[g8orbill]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age'

[jdrgator]

what type of research are you referring to? which research is more biased, climate, physics, chemistry? to me it, at this time, has more in common with social sciences like sociology, criminology, history, which are more subjective and opinion based but that is probably just me and my own bias. how do you possibly come up with a hypothesis and form a experiment that can deal with the millions of variables, at best it is a review with wild ass guesses based on interpretations of severely limited/lacking data in a literal millionth or billionth of a second of time. it seems almost like looking at the sea level at high tide on tuesday morning and claiming the sea is rising and you better move to idaho cuz if the sea came up 3 feet in 8 hours it will cover florida by friday. in my lifetime i have lived through both a certain ice age and a certain catastrophic waring with rising seas covering florida without any noticeable effect on my life, or yours i'll bet. the process of writing a grant proposal is certainly a learned art, but it is by no means rocket science and is often written by grant writers who are not the researchers, then reviewed and possibly tweaked by the researcher, which is why i ask what type you are referring to because my experience is limited to a specific medical field and it may very well be different in your field.

There can be bias in any research and in any decision along the way during a research study. It doesn't matter if it's the physical or social sciences. But even in the social sciences, people behave in predictable ways and are affected by group and individual characteristics (including genetics/biology). I don't deny that some research in the social sciences can certainly be too biased, but in the social sciences, there is also qualitative methodologies that actually contend with this and use the natural biases of both the researcher and subject to produce knowledge.

Quantitatively speaking, I'd say a really good "natural" example of what occurs in the social sciences can be seen in Nate Silver's work at the NYT (this isjust as an example, actual research studies are often different in focus and purpose, but it's still a good instance of the kind of modeling of social behavior that is done: 538 election forecasting model (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012-forecast/). But I think you misunderstand my response to neisgator (and my apologies if I am misreading your comments) about grant writing or the grant process and university research in general, not about whether he could do it or not . It was his simple assumption that because researchers get grants that the science is all just opinion or simply driven by money, or are just in it for the money. It's as wrong as it is ignorant...but that is typically the case when someone makes a sweeping generalization.

As for actual climate science, well, I am not a climate researcher, so the questions you ask aren't for me to answer, but like you or anyone else who takes the time to read up on an issue, and has an understanding of science--warts and all--one can make determinations about what they think is true, and moreover, about distinguishing one's beliefs from scientific facts.

[Row6]

I have a right or license to believe any damn thing I please.

Indeed you do but why would you?

[jdrgator]

I have a right or license to believe any damn thing I please.

Whoopdee doo. Now tell us something we don't know.

[Row6]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.

At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.

By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age'


Good post bill.

[neisgator]

Science is neither liberal or conservative. You don't know what you're taking about again.

As long as Im on the opposite side of you, well, I know exactly what Im talking about.

Keep moving the climate goal posts, dude, it is humorous for those of us with common sense.

[jdrgator]

You are right...in the upside down world of liberal land, common sense is "nothing"

Back to hiding behind the quip again. Deflect all you want, I get it. You could very well have a great deal of common sense--doubtful though as it seems--but it can't mask that you cannot defend your claims.

[neisgator]

Back to hiding behind the quip again. Deflect all you want, I get it. You could very well have a great deal of common sense--doubtful though as it seems--but it can't mask that you cannot defend your claims.

What's to defend? That your science is crap/bought and paid for?
Why do I have "link" all of that for the 1000th time on this board?

La la land is calling.

[g8orbill]

jdr- since most scienteists seem to be of th eliberal pursaussion it is hard to take what they say seriously
then you add in all the false and contrived bulla bulla they have put forth and those of us on the right become very skeptical-then when you take a look at what has been thrown out there over the last 30-40 years concerning global warming and all the sky is falling rhetoric- and it becomes even easier to think those of you who believe this sort of stuff are EW's

why would we even begin to buy what your side is selling?

[Gatorrick22]

What's to defend? That your science is crap/bought and paid for?
Why do I have "link" all of that for the 1000th time on this board?

La la land is calling.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

He must be a politician.

[sappanama]

[QUOTE=Row6;6562593]You didn't live through a certain ice age. Most climate research done in the 70s showed global warming, not cooling.

Maybe you aren't from Florida, I can tell you the talk in Ft Myers in the 60's and 70's was never about warming, but about cooling and we weren't opposed to a little cooling in august during 2 a days

“The continued rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization, and an exploding population, added to a renewal of volcanic activity.”

- Reid Bryson, “‘All Other Factors Being Constant . . .’ A Reconciliation of Several Theories of Climate Change,” in John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, eds., Global Ecology: Readings Towards a Rational Strategy for Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich, 1971), p. 84.

“The generally cold period worldwide during the 1960s and early 1970s caused speculation that the world was heading for an ice age. A British television programme about climate change called ‘The ice age cometh’ was prepared early in the early 1970s and widely screened—but the cold trend soon came to an end. We must not be misled by our relatively short memories.”

- John Houghton, Global Warming: The Complete Briefing (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 7.

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.”

- Peter Gwynne, “The Cooling World,” Newsweek, April 28, 1975, p. 64.

“Our climate has swung wildly from severe warming during the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s to severe cooling during the 1960s. . . . The cooling is a fact.”

- Lowell Ponte, The Cooling: Has The Next Ice Age Already Begun? Can We Survive It (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1976), p. 31.

[jdrgator]

jdr- since most scienteists seem to be of th eliberal pursaussion it is hard to take what they say seriously
then you add in all the false and contrived bulla bulla they have put forth and those of us on the right become very skeptical-then when you take a look at what has been thrown out there over the last 30-40 years concerning global warming and all the sky is falling rhetoric- and it becomes even easier to think those of you who believe this sort of stuff are EW's

why would we even begin to buy what your side is selling?

The point is, it's not a "side" bill--in fact, when it comes to science, I want to know facts, not ideology. I'll admit, sometimes those facts are really hard to accept because they confront long held beliefs, but this is the challenge for all scientists and researchers who try to adhere to the the standards of science, most especially trying to be objective.

And really bill, if you would put partisanship aside for just a moment, you might recognize that if I am "selling" anything it is for you (or others) to actually look to the science. Row6 is exactly right, science is not about left and right, regardless of individual scientist's political ideologies.

I don't believe that you think of me as a liar (or maybe you do), but I can only give you what I either know as fact or believe to be true from of my fifteen years of experience and knowledge on such things. And really, if after you looked to the science and still didn't had doubt, I'd say fine. Doubt/skepticism are good things. Besides, fair minded folk can disagree . But if you gave an earnest look to it, I can guarantee you wouldn't be falling so easily into the trap that binds so many to partisan ideology rather than an objective view of the science.

And yes, I concur with Row, that link you posted was a good one. They do pretty good work over at skeptical science in bring an informed, reasonable voice to the discussion.

[jdrgator]

What's to defend? That your science is crap/bought and paid for?
Why do I have "link" all of that for the 1000th time on this board?

La la land is calling.

Well then you better hurry and pick up the phone. You don't want to get in trouble.

[jdrgator]

sappanama

You should have probably read the link posted by Bill, first. But to save you some time, here's a little help (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm). Be sure to read the Intermediate section.

What was the scientific consensus in the 1970s regarding future climate? The most cited example of 1970s cooling predictions is a 1975 Newsweek article "The Cooling World" that suggested cooling "may portend a drastic decline for food production."

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."

A 1974 Time magazine article Another Ice Age? painted a similarly bleak picture:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Peer-Reviewed Literature
However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case

[GatorRade]

I do not think the science on GW is reliable at all

I believe that you don't. What I wonder is why you might think that the work of, let's say, Anthony Watts or the Heritage Foundation, is reliable? By what criteria do you judge the relative reliability of these different analyses?

[GatorRade]

Yep, I am in the real world. And you aren't. That's what I said. And, in this case, it is a fact.

These scientists are paid to write/publish crap. It's called their meal ticket.
It isn't rocket science. Pun intended.

I think jdr has a point in querying exactly how much you really know about the profession of science. So let's follow your logic for a minute:

A) Scientists get paid publish "crap" (as jdr points out, actually scientists are on salary and don't get paid by the conclusions of their work, but let's give your argument the benefit of the doubt and say they are chasing "fame" or really love paying the salary for new graduate students)

B) Therefore, they are now willing to risk their entire scientific credibility (read: their job) in order to totally falsify all their work to publishing totally fabricated data. This seems to contradict itself, but let's say scientists are all really dumb or addictive gamblers, for your argument.

But even once we make all of these assumptions to help you out, we are left wondering why we don't get...

C) Other scientists, who get "fame" for publishing, replicating the work of these obligate liars in order to expose their fraud and take all of their "fame" and graduate students??? Why wouldn't this system regulate itself? It hasn't seemed to occur to you that all scientists aren't friends. In fact, many of the most successful ones regard all other scientists as competitors. Like when a Obama makes a claim about Romney's taxes. He isn't going to keep silent in hopes that Romney will stop talking about Obama's transcripts. That doesn't happen.

In the end, your logic actually falsifies our entire economic model. If (A) someone is to gain from a making a claim, then (B) that claim must be false. Now we know that Sony must be lying that their TVs don't give you eye cancer. Iams must be lying that their dog food won't poison your dogs. Walmart must be lying that their prices are always low.

Do you see what happened here? If we take your simple logic to prove that claims are lies, everything we've ever been told is a lie. I think we should probably use a different method to test claims.

[Gatorrick22]

I think jdr has a point in querying exactly how much you really know about the profession of science. So let's follow your logic for a minute:

A) Scientists get paid publish "crap" (as jdr points out, actually scientists are on salary and don't get paid by the conclusions of their work, but let's give your argument the benefit of the doubt and say they are chasing "fame" or really love paying the salary for new graduate students)

B) Therefore, they are now willing to risk their entire scientific credibility (read: their job) in order to totally falsify all their work to publishing totally fabricated data. This seems to contradict itself, but let's say scientists are all really dumb or addictive gamblers, for your argument.

But even once we make all of these assumptions to help you out, we are left wondering why we don't get...

C) Other scientists, who get "fame" for publishing, replicating the work of these obligate liars in order to expose their fraud and take all of their "fame" and graduate students??? Why wouldn't this system regulate itself? It hasn't seemed to occur to you that all scientists aren't friends. In fact, many of the most successful ones regard all other scientists as competitors. Like when a Obama makes a claim about Romney's taxes. He isn't going to keep silent in hopes that Romney will stop talking about Obama's transcripts. That doesn't happen.

In the end, your logic actually falsifies our entire economic model. If (A) someone is to gain from a making a claim, then (B) that claim must be false. Now we know that Sony must be lying that their TVs don't give you eye cancer. Iams must be lying that their dog food won't poison your dogs. Walmart must be lying that their prices are always low.

Do you see what happened here? If we take your simple logic to prove that claims are lies, everything we've ever been told is a lie. I think we should probably use a different method to test claims.

And yet freedom loving Americans in our military, as commissioned officers, sell military secrets to the commies for money. So what's you point? That scientists are not human but salaried cyborgs that cannot tell a lie? Man where did you learn sociology? Ridiculous.

News flash: There are some scientists that will lie to make 'their' point.

But here's some that are probably telling the truth.

http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/global-warming-hoax-leading-scientists-debunk-climate-alarmism

http://www.climategate.com/former-nasa-scientist-debunks-co2-greenhouse-theory

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb


One more thing. Do you believe Al Gore is a good climatologist too?

[g8trjax]

I'm still waiting to figure out how taxing us more will cool the Earth. :laugh:


That's political and scientific consensus, married and living together in the upper east side of Manhattan.

[neisgator]

I think jdr has a point in querying exactly how much you really know about the profession of science. So let's follow your logic for a minute:

A) Scientists get paid publish "crap" (as jdr points out, actually scientists are on salary and don't get paid by the conclusions of their work, but let's give your argument the benefit of the doubt and say they are chasing "fame" or really love paying the salary for new graduate students)

B) Therefore, they are now willing to risk their entire scientific credibility (read: their job) in order to totally falsify all their work to publishing totally fabricated data. This seems to contradict itself, but let's say scientists are all really dumb or addictive gamblers, for your argument.

But even once we make all of these assumptions to help you out, we are left wondering why we don't get...

C) Other scientists, who get "fame" for publishing, replicating the work of these obligate liars in order to expose their fraud and take all of their "fame" and graduate students??? Why wouldn't this system regulate itself? It hasn't seemed to occur to you that all scientists aren't friends. In fact, many of the most successful ones regard all other scientists as competitors. Like when a Obama makes a claim about Romney's taxes. He isn't going to keep silent in hopes that Romney will stop talking about Obama's transcripts. That doesn't happen.

In the end, your logic actually falsifies our entire economic model. If (A) someone is to gain from a making a claim, then (B) that claim must be false. Now we know that Sony must be lying that their TVs don't give you eye cancer. Iams must be lying that their dog food won't poison your dogs. Walmart must be lying that their prices are always low.

Do you see what happened here? If we take your simple logic to prove that claims are lies, everything we've ever been told is a lie. I think we should probably use a different method to test claims.

Im glad you think he has a point, congratulations, you are in upside down land too.

Pointing out they are on salary is irrelevant. The monies behind them, a lot of which is from governments around the world, already have decided what the conclusion needs to say. The scientists aren't stupid. They still get to study "science", and BONUS, they get to be paid handsomely for it...just keep within the "company" line.

Your simplistic (A) (B) claim shouldn't surprise me. It is what liberals do. Unfortunately for you, you aren't talking to a conservative. You are talking to a common sense liberty loving libertarian who smells a sh** sandwich from miles away.

[GatorRade]

And yet freedom loving Americans in our military, as commissioned officers, sell military secrets to the commies for money. So what's you point? That scientists are not human but salaried cyborgs that cannot tell a lie? Man where did you learn sociology? Ridiculous.

News flash: There are some scientists that will lie to make 'their' point.

But here's some that are probably telling the truth.

http://poleshift.ning.com/profiles/blogs/global-warming-hoax-leading-scientists-debunk-climate-alarmism

http://www.climategate.com/former-nasa-scientist-debunks-co2-greenhouse-theory

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Here is the million dollar question that the "skeptics" cannot ever seem to answer on here: How can you tell those scientists who are lying from those telling the truth?

One more thing. Do you believe Al Gore is a good climatologist too?

PS Come on rick. No need to be insulting with this where did you learn sociology?/Al Gore BS. If you can't reason without insults, just leave it alone.

[neisgator]

Here is the million dollar question that the "skeptics" cannot ever seem to answer on here: How can you tell those scientists who are lying from those telling the truth?



PS Come on rick. No need to be insulting with this where did you learn sociology?/Al Gore BS. If you can't reason without insults, just leave it alone.

Here is the million dollar question that FAKE GW believers can't ever seem to answer:

How can you tell those scientists who are lying from those telling the truth?

[GatorRade]

Im glad you think he has a point, congratulations, you are in upside down land too.

Everyone who disagrees with you is in upside down land. Got it.

Pointing out they are on salary is irrelevant. The monies behind them, a lot of which is from governments around the world, already have decided what the conclusion needs to say. The scientists aren't stupid. They still get to study "science", and BONUS, they get to be paid handsomely for it...just keep within the "company" line.

Serious question: How many climatologists have you met?

Your simplistic (A) (B) claim shouldn't surprise me. It is what liberals do. Unfortunately for you, you aren't talking to a conservative. You are talking to a common sense liberty loving libertarian who smells a sh** sandwich from miles away.

My simplistic A and B claim shouldn't surprise you, as it is your entire theory. And to your clear surprise, you aren't dealing with a "liberal" either. Welcome to your first double libertarian reverse surprise (though I never really thought about what political persuasion you might have). But unlike you, I follow libertarianism because I believe truth is elusive. Ironically for a libertarian, you seem to believe that you know absolute truth. But honestly, if I was you, I'd wonder if my being "freedom loving" has anything to do with the fact that my conclusions regarding the truth here tend to support individual freedom?

[neisgator]

Everyone who disagrees with you is in upside down land. Got it.



Serious question: How many climatologists have you met?



My simplistic A and B claim shouldn't surprise you, as it is your entire theory. And to your clear surprise, you aren't dealing with a "liberal" either. Welcome to your first double libertarian reverse surprise (though I never really thought about what political persuasion you might have). But unlike you, I follow libertarianism because I believe truth is elusive. Ironically for a libertarian, you seem to believe that you know absolute truth. But honestly, if I was you, I'd wonder if my being "freedom loving" has anything to do with the fact that my conclusions regarding the truth here tend to support individual freedom?
Heading to work now..try to answer later.

Most people are in upside down land. The water is warm there I'd wager.
Ive met 4 in my life.

Your last line was particularly humorous, care to break that one down for me...

[Gatorrick22]

Here is the million dollar question that the "skeptics" cannot ever seem to answer on here: How can you tell those scientists who are lying from those telling the truth?

PS Come on rick. No need to be insulting with this where did you learn sociology?/Al Gore BS. If you can't reason without insults, just leave it alone.

My question on Gore was tongue-n-cheek, not an insult. No need to get upset about it.

As far as the scientists that I believe, well that's mostly irrelevant. Because I'm more concerned with the Dems/UN solution to fight the possibility of Man made global warming. And that is to tax only American businesses and power generating plants with no consideration to the Chinese, Russians, Indians, and the Brazilians polluting the same exact atmosphere we all share.

It's not a solution, but a money grab/tax imposed under a false pretense. The only thing the Dems want is money$$$$. Because if they were serious about greenhouse gasses they'd already be imposing some sort strategy that involves the #1, 3, 4, 5 biggest greenhouse gas polluters on Earth not named the U.S.A.. But, they're not.

[Swampmaster]

the earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years --- yes, before "man" arrived. It will keep warming and cooling, no matter what al gore says in a speech or book.

[GatorRade]

Here is the million dollar question that FAKE GW believers can't ever seem to answer:

How can you tell those scientists who are lying from those telling the truth?

I see you think I'm a "fake" believer. In other words, you don't think I believe in global warming?

In this case, I don't know for sure who is lying. In fact, I don't believe almost any scientist is lying. Not Mann, not Curry, not even Watts (though I don't find his conclusions to be trustworthy, I certainly don't believe he is being knowingly deceitful).

So what I focus on is how to identify the truth in an argument. To this end, I follow a pattern of decision making based first on scientific principles and second on critical thinking and economics. In this case, I can't really verify the scientific principles behind most of the complex stats, so I must leave that to others.

I can critique most of the skeptical arguments on here though, as they are usually rather simple. For example, just above Swampmaster has posted the "X happened in the past, and therefore the recent Y cannot cause X" logical fallacy. This is one that is just clearly fallacious, and yet it keeps popping up on here. So while I cannot say that I know that anthropogenic climate change is occurring for sure, I can discount the critics who bring forth arguments such as these. (also I can put to bed the "scientists are leftist conspirators" theory via first hand knowledge).

So I am left with very few on the skeptic side that I trust. I like Curry. But I also like several non-dissenting climatologists. Oh and I like Oaktowngator on here. He is skeptical of the anthropogenic theory, but not because of these self serving arguments.

[GatorRade]

My question on Gore was more tongue-n-cheek than an insult. No need to get upset about it.

As far as the scientists that I believe, well that's mostly irrelevant. Because I'm more concerned with the Dems/UN solution to fight the possibility of Man made global warming. And that is to tax only American businesses and power generating plants with no consideration to the Chinese, Russians, Indians, and the Brazilians polluting the same exact atmosphere we all share.

It's not a solution, but a money grab/tax imposed under a false pretense. The only thing the Dems want is money$$$$. Because if they were serious about greenhouse gasses they'd already be imposing some sort strategy that involves the #1, 3, 4, 5 biggest greenhouse gas polluters on Earth not named the U.S.A.. But, they're not.

Well I think this political issue should remain independent from the scientific argument, which is why I think the "solution" question is irrelevant. If anyone really tried to tax the US and leave Europe and Asia alone, then that is obviously silly. But that doesn't discredit the anthropogenic theory. (also, I've never seen such a proposal)

[OaktownGator]

My question on Gore was more tongue-n-cheek than an insult. No need to get upset about it.

As far as the scientists that I believe, well that's mostly irrelevant. Because I'm more concerned with the Dems/UN solution to fight the possibility of Man made global warming. And that is to tax only American businesses and power generating plants with no consideration to the Chinese, Russians, Indians, and the Brazilians polluting the same exact atmosphere we all share.

It's not a solution, but a money grab/tax imposed under a false pretense. The only thing the Dems want is money$$$$. Because if they were serious about greenhouse gasses they'd already be imposing some sort strategy that involves the #1, 3, 4, 5 biggest greenhouse gas polluters on Earth not named the U.S.A.. But, they're not.
Rade is not a proponent (that I've ever seen) of any kind of taxes / money grabs, etc.

He is purely talking the science of global warming and debating whether it makes sense to think that 99% of climate scientists are just corrupt liars on the dole.

And that doesn't make sense. At all. It's too easy to disprove intentionally fraudulent science. It would have been done. By other scientists. For reasons Rade has clearly stated.

My problem with the warming models is that I don't think they take into account longer term cycles that may also be impacting our climate and may overstate CO2 forcing.

Plus climate is just a damned complex thing to model.

[GatorRade]

Your last line was particularly humorous, care to break that one down for me...

Sure. I like to understand truth and bias, which is why I am on this thread. There is an idea that leftists environmentalists will be more likely to believe a not-well supported link between release of a chemical and hazardous external consequences. Not surprisingly, this is accurate (http://www.motherjones.com/files/kahan_paper_cultural_cognition_of_scientific_conse sus.pdf). So what about the reverse? Do more individualistically minded freedom lovers be more likely to deny a well-supported link between chemical release and pollution? Yes again.

So, what I am saying is that you being a "freedom loving" libertarian very likely plants a subconscious bias for you to disregard data that suggests that a personal freedom can lead to a negative externality. Economist and truth theorist Robin Hanson (blog (http://www.overcomingbias.com/)) urges us, wisely in my view, to take into account our own priors once we discover them. In other words, a libertarian should slightly decrease confidence in their conclusions that support libertarianism, as he should know that he is predisposed to this conclusion.

[g8orbill]

Raid if you want to buy all that stuff go ahead of skin off my feet just don't try to force that crap down my throat

[fredsanford]

jdr- since most scienteists seem to be of th eliberal pursaussion it is hard to take what they say seriously
then you add in all the false and contrived bulla bulla they have put forth and those of us on the right become very skeptical-then when you take a look at what has been thrown out there over the last 30-40 years concerning global warming and all the sky is falling rhetoric- and it becomes even easier to think those of you who believe this sort of stuff are EW's

why would we even begin to buy what your side is selling?

Let's see if I have this straight:

Most scientists are liberal so they are not to be believed. FYI, I know a lot of scientists and engineers and they are hardly skew liberal as a group.

10% or so of the world's scientists are skeptical of Climate Change. Most of these are paid by either Exxon/Mobil or right wing think tanks. Their conclusions are taken as the gospel.

Is that about right?

[Gatorrick22]

Let's see if I have this straight:

Most scientists are liberal so they are not to be believed. FYI, I know a lot of scientists and engineers and they are hardly skew liberal as a group.

10% or so of the world's scientists are skeptical of Climate Change. Most of these are paid by either Exxon/Mobil or right wing think tanks. Their conclusions are taken as the gospel.

Is that about right?

And who pays the other 90% of said scientists? :whistle:

[T3goalie]

This can all be solved by taxing and the selling of carbon credits.

The earth will instantly be saved and our leaders hailed for their foresight.

*Still waiting for the explanation of the heating and cooling of the earth before cars and where the 5 ice ages came from and how they went...

[Gatorrick22]

This can all be solved by taxing and the selling of carbon credits.

The earth will instantly be saved and our leaders hailed for their foresight.

*Still waiting for the explanation of the heating and cooling of the earth before cars and where the 5 ice ages came from and how they went...

Lol.....

Exactly what the 'commiecrats' think. :wink:

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Let me get this straight. You, MichaelJoeWilliamson, who believes that virtually all climate scientists are biased or worse are a part of an elaborate hoax conspiracy, are accusing me, GatorRade, of intellectual dishonesty based on...me pointing to a link suggesting that one of your trusted sources is biased.

Biased about what? You are essentially discounting the views of a climate scientist because of his religious views. Views I was not even aware of before a few days ago. Views that are not expressed anywhere on his climate web site. So yes, I think it is intellectually dishonest to bring his religious views into a discussion about AGW.

Either research has gone into natural sources of climate variation or it hasn't. And it quite easy to show that it has.

OK, let's define our terms just a bit better, shall we?

You claim a lot of research has gone into natural causes of climate variation. Let's accept this on it face.

Now, are those natural causes well understood? No one can claim that. The latest research shows that most climate models, especially those favored by AGW scientists, have not been very reliable. That climate variation seem to be far, far less sensitive to CO2 concentrations.

So, when I say that there has not been a lot of research on climate variation, I am coming at it from the viewpoint that, comparatively speaking to AGW research, there has not been. We certainly do not understand it very well.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I believe that you don't. What I wonder is why you might think that the work of, let's say, Anthony Watts or the Heritage Foundation, is reliable? By what criteria do you judge the relative reliability of these different analyses?

You asked Bill that, but let me answer. Let's follow the science. Right now, accurate data is limited to a few decades. So all we have are models. And the models are not very predictive.

[jdrgator]

Lol.....

Exactly what the 'commiecrats' think. :wink:

You are a hoot.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wI5dx0SiQ5k/RwbYSqyU_7I/AAAAAAAAAtI/8szpTpEnj0s/s400/Belly_laugh.gif


Carbon credits or cap and trade was actually a republican idea (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Presence-of-Mind-Blue-Sky-Thinking.html) that is based in large part on free market principles.

How you come to associate that with communism is beyond rational comprehension. Though you did give me a good laugh.

[OaktownGator]

This can all be solved by taxing and the selling of carbon credits.

The earth will instantly be saved and our leaders hailed for their foresight.

Rade and I don't even see the AGW science the same way, but if you read what he posts, you'll know he's not proposing this. At all.

So why argue it? Argue the merits of the science on AGW. That's all he's asking.

*Still waiting for the explanation of the heating and cooling of the earth before cars and where the 5 ice ages came from and how they went...
*Still waiting for the explanation on how fire existed before man created matches and Zippos.

Silly, isn't it?

The preexistence of natural phenomena does not eliminate the ability for man to create/impact natural phenomena.

While I am skeptical of the degree of CO2 forcing, one thing is without question - man is pushing CO2 levels FAR higher than peak levels over the past several hundred thousand years. Could be double previous peak levels (for that time frame) within our children's lifetime.

It is unreasonable to think that will have no impacts.

Even if climate may not be adversely impacted (I could argue there is potential for CO2 forcing to moderate long term cooling, which would be a positive impact), marine acidification is a well understood DEFINITE adverse impact of pushing CO2 levels higher. It is already adversely impacting coral reefs which are foundational to marine ecosystems, and will continue to adversely impact pH sensitive marine species.

[GatorRade]

My problem with the warming models is that I don't think they take into account longer term cycles that may also be impacting our climate and may overstate CO2 forcing.

Plus climate is just a damned complex thing to model.

As you know, I think these are legitimate concerns Oaktown. But I also wonder: if you and I, smart people but no smarter than many scientists, can see these possible limitations, why hasn't the climate science community backed off confidence to our levels? Then I become skeptical of our criticisms. In the end, I am not an expert in this field, so I have to default at some point to (1) the opinion of people I somehow deem to be experts or (2) use some logic outside of climate science to discredit them.

Either way, I am not totally satisfied. But I am particularly displeased with dismissing the opinion of the climate science community with extremely high confidence. I am not sure we have enough data to warrant 100% confidence in current models , but I am sure we don't have enough data to 100% discredit them at this time either.

[Row6]

As you know, I think these are legitimate concerns Oaktown. But I also wonder: if you and I, smart people but no smarter than many scientists, can see these possible limitations, why hasn't the climate science community backed off confidence to our levels? Then I become skeptical of our criticisms. In the end, I am not an expert in this field, so I have to default at some point to (1) the opinion of people I somehow deem to be experts or (2) use some logic outside of climate science to discredit them.

Either way, I am not totally satisfied. But I am particularly displeased with dismissing the opinion of the climate science community with extremely high confidence. I am not sure we have enough data to warrant 100% confidence in current models , but I am sure we don't have enough data to 100% discredit them at this time either.

Bingo.

I am not even close to being scientifically fluent or on the same level as you and oak, but it should be obvious that the go-to experts on the subject are - the experts! Who knew?? If they are wrong, they must mostly be in on some tin foil hat conspiracy or fools and liars. That goes for the all the organizations of scientists all over the world as well which have endorsed the consensus. Some on TH who think everything is political favor the conspiracy theory while others, in their eagerness to believe what they want to believe hang out solely on blogs which scratch their itch to paint the mainstream on this issue as fools, posting impressive looking graphs from minority sources, as if there were not answers to their doubts and criticisms - with equally impressive graphs - from the mainstream.

[OaktownGator]

As you know, I think these are legitimate concerns Oaktown. But I also wonder: if you and I, smart people but no smarter than many scientists, can see these possible limitations, why hasn't the climate science community backed off confidence to our levels? Then I become skeptical of our criticisms. In the end, I am not an expert in this field, so I have to default at some point to (1) the opinion of people I somehow deem to be experts or (2) use some logic outside of climate science to discredit them.

Either way, I am not totally satisfied. But I am particularly displeased with dismissing the opinion of the climate science community with extremely high confidence. I am not sure we have enough data to warrant 100% confidence in current models , but I am sure we don't have enough data to 100% discredit them at this time either.
I understand these views completely, and I certainly don't have the expertise to authoritatively question the science of the experts.

So I am skeptical at a level to where I don't have enough confidence in the current state of the science to justify expensive policies specifically to address global warming.

But I am honestly interested in learning more as more studies come out, hopefully increasing accuracy of predictions and accounting for longer term cycles. As that occurs, I'll adjust my views and confidence levels accordingly.

[GatorRade]

Bingo.

I am not even close to being scientifically fluent or on the same level as you and oak, but it should be obvious that the go-to experts on the subject are - the experts! Who knew?? If they are wrong, they are they must mostly be in on some tin foil hat conspiracy or fools and liars. That goes for the all the organizations of scientists all over the world as well which have endorsed the consensus. Some on TH who think everything is political favor the conspiracy theory while others, in their eagerness to believe what they want to believe hang out solely on blogs which scratch their itch to paint the mainstream on this issue as fools, posting impressive looking graphs from minority sources, as if there were not answers to their doubts and criticisms - with equally impressive graphs - from the mainstream.

Definitely a great deal of politics thrown around in this debate regarding Earth science. Doesn't seem like something that would get us closer to the truth.

[Row6]

Definitely a great deal of politics thrown around in this debate regarding Earth science. Doesn't seem like something that would get us closer to the truth.

Agree, and politics should have nothing to do with our understanding of existing conditions, whatever science determines them to be. I understand the complaint of many on the right who project to the left a tendency like their own to decide the issue on politics, but that is not what drives the science, or even those who accept the consensus. Certainly I hope that the consensus is wrong and that we and our progeny don't have to deal with a very serious and fast moving disruption of our existing environment or conversely an economic albatross in an effort to avert one. There may be some Luddite leftists who do wish for a validation of their own anti-scientific tendencies - see the anti-vaccination squads - in a failing of modern civilization, but i suspect there are a lot less of them than right wingers lined up on the other side of the equation. In between are those who still recognize that science and other forms of collective knowledge are the primary difference makers responsible for our current prosperity and future survival while hoping we can smartly adjust to facts as necessary and in a timely fashion to avoid a major upheaval of civilization.

[sappanama]

sappanama

You should have probably read the link posted by Bill, first. But to save you some time, here's a little help (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm). Be sure to read the Intermediate section.

the point wasn't that in the 70's (as a teenager) i undertook a peer reviewed literature review, but that the hysteria of the day was for cooling, i guarantee that nobody(in the regular world that was ft myers) was discussing anything but the hysteria of the day- cooling. Now the hysteria is warming, whether there is conclusive data or not.

[Row6]

the point wasn't that in the 70's (as a teenager) i undertook a peer reviewed literature review, but that the hysteria of the day was for cooling, i guarantee that nobody(in the regular world that was ft myers) was discussing anything but the hysteria of the day- cooling. Now the hysteria is warming, whether there is conclusive data or not.

There is conclusive data, which makes the term "hysteria" inoperative.

[jdrgator]

the point wasn't that in the 70's (as a teenager) i undertook a peer reviewed literature review, but that the hysteria of the day was for cooling, i guarantee that nobody(in the regular world that was ft myers) was discussing anything but the hysteria of the day- cooling. Now the hysteria is warming, whether there is conclusive data or not.

The hysteria of the day was media driven, not science driven. Set aside the media and look to the science. Just taking the opposite stance because the media drove a "moral panic" about cooling doesn't justify dismissing the science because of the sins of the media.

[OaktownGator]

Interesting set of charts from the EPA website on atmospheric CO2 concentrations for this century based on a range of scenarios.

As of 2007 we were ahead of pace to exceed 900ppm by 2100... this is more than triple previous peak levels for the past several hundred thousand years.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/science/ScenarioCO2-large.jpg

[jimgata]

even tripled, it is still a minute part of the atmosphere.

[GatorRade]

even tripled, it is still a minute part of the atmosphere.

Sure it is - only 900 parts per million. But is this relevant? Are you going to allow a doctor to infect you with only 900 parts per million of Ebola virus?

[jdrgator]

I understand these views completely, and I certainly don't have the expertise to authoritatively question the science of the experts.

So I am skeptical at a level to where I don't have enough confidence in the current state of the science to justify expensive policies specifically to address global warming.

But I am honestly interested in learning more as more studies come out, hopefully increasing accuracy of predictions and accounting for longer term cycles. As that occurs, I'll adjust my views and confidence levels accordingly.

I know for me, oak, it's been helpful to detach science from policy. In other words, if I am viewing science through a policy lens to understand the science rather than judging it on it's merits than I can't really focusing on the science. Kind of a variant of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle).

[Gatorrick22]

You are a hoot.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_wI5dx0SiQ5k/RwbYSqyU_7I/AAAAAAAAAtI/8szpTpEnj0s/s400/Belly_laugh.gif




Glad I can make you laugh. That's why I'm a Tea Party conservative, not a run-of-the-mill... business as usual, Pub.

[demosthenes]

Sure it is - only 900 parts per million. But is this relevant? Are you going to allow a doctor to infect you with only 900 parts per million of Ebola virus?

CO2 is akin to Ebola? :whistle:

There's trying to make a point through a little hyperbole and looking like you're off your rocker...

[GatorRade]

CO2 is akin to Ebola? :whistle:

There's trying to make a point through a little hyperbole and looking like you're off your rocker...

It's not hyperbole; it's an analogy. Both CO2 and Ebola are agents that can have dramatic impacts on their environments in relatively small concentrations. This is a fact that seems to elude many on here with regards to CO2, so I was hoping the Ebola analogy could help the situation. I hope that makes sense.

[jdrgator]

Glad I can make you laugh. That's why I'm a Tea Party conservative, not a run-of-the-mill... business as usual, Pub.

Commiecrat is funny. Besides, all the other names are kind of stale now. :)