Paleoconservative movement and global warming

[iNow]

I would not have used the word "bigot".

So, you basically agree with the entire thrust of my summary then? It was not my intention to misrepresent you. It was not my intention to attack you. I was simply paraphrasing what seemed to be your stance on this topic.

 

My paraphrasing of your, Pangloss', approach:

 

"If you apply the same scrutiny to the claims of people who deny global climate change as you would to someone in other branches of science, then you are PC [whatever] and should be ashamed of yourself."

 

If I have misinterpreted you, please explain where.

 

 

Attack is your tactic, not mine.

A self falsifying statement, is this not?

[Rev Blair]

To Rev

 

Ignoring all those ridiculous posts between yours and this one .....

 

Not really arguing with you, but I think you may be just a wee bit negative on things.

 

First : Our environment record. I don't think it is as bad as you make out. Things have actually improved a lot over the past 100 years in the western world. You may recall the old 'pea-soup' smogs reported in literature for London 100 years ago. Those are now a thing of the past. The River Thames was then quite toxic. Today salmon swim in it. The same applies to the whole east coast of the USA. Once toxic. Now much cleaner.

 

The real environment problems today are in those nations going through the stage of development that the west did 100 years ago. ie. China and Eastern Europe. And they are working to clean things up.

 

Second : Capitalism. It is not the function of capitalism to clean up the environment. Their function is to make money and get it to their shareholders. However, responsible capitalists have as a guiding value the requirement to obey the law. Thus, it is the law (ie government) that has the role of driving the cleaning of the environment.

 

This was true in the past, and is now true for the reduction of carbon emissions.

 

Capitalism has only cleaned up their act when forced to by government though, SkepticLance. They didn't decide to stop burning coal in London, in fact they fought every attempt to do so. It was a fog that killed a lot of people in the 1950s that caused so much public outrage that the government acted in spite of corporate outcry.

 

The Thames clean-up first began after The Big Stink, when the stench from the river was so bad that Parliament had to rise. It was also driven by cholera epidemics, which led to a proper sewage system being built.

 

Again, capitalists opposed the clean-up as being too expensive.

 

Let's have a little look at the auto industry in North America though.

 

General Motors worked very hard to get rid of public transit in the last century. They were pretty successful too. That's pretty well documented.

 

The industry opposed every safety innovation, saying it would bankrupt them. They had Ralph Nader followed by private investigators in an attempt to discredit and/or blackmail him. Nader's book caused enough public outcry that the government finally had to act.

 

The industry has opposed CAFE standards and emissions controls every step of the way. There is at least some evidence that they have again had environmentalists followed in an attempt to discredit them. They've been dragging their feet on creating clean vehicles for a couple of decades now. They've become very adept at making friends in government and running greenwashing campaigns, but they really haven't done much and what they have done had to be forced on them.

 

You can run a similar scenario through almost every industry, from inefficient homes and buildings to manufacturing to airlines to mining.

 

The reason that nations like China and India are growing so fast now is because of the interests of the corporations being put first. Why don't trade deals include environmental and labour standards? Because Mattel can make a lot more money if Barbie is made in a sweatshop that runs on coal and uses the children of political prisoners for labour.

 

If the rich western/northern countries...the market for the products made in those developing countries...said that the developing world had to clean up their act, they would find support from the people and governments there. The opposition is driven by multi-national corporations.

[Aardvark]

It's curious.

 

I point out that the theory of global warming attracts the attention of various groups with their own agendas to push and that much of the debate is thus highly partisan. I point out several instances where dubious claims concerning global warming have been widely made and been influential in the public policy sphere and suggest that from this i retain a degree of scepticism over the theory. I even go out of my way to point out that scepticism is NOT the same thing as disbelief,

 

and for this,

 

I am called a 'denialist' who engages in 'strawmanning' 'handwaving' (whatever that is), 'appeals to authority', indulging in 'conspiracy theories' and 'attacking the science'.

 

All things considered, it looks like i am the one maintaining the proper scientific attitude toward an interesting hypothesis. The way some people are responding it is almost like they are defending a religious belief against a perceived heresy.

[iNow]

All things considered, it looks like i am the one maintaining the proper scientific attitude toward an interesting hypothesis. The way some people are responding it is almost like they are defending a religious belief against a perceived heresy.

 

What specific study data are you skeptical about, and why? Suggesting that the conclusions were used inapprpriately in a political arena is not a scientific challenge of the data itself.

 

Go ahead, since you're "maintaining the proper scientific attitude," be specfic and reference the study to which you are referring and call out errors in its methods and conclusions.

[Pangloss]

So, you basically agree with the entire thrust of my summary then? It was not my intention to misrepresent you. It was not my intention to attack you. I was simply paraphrasing what seemed to be your stance on this topic.

 

My paraphrasing of your, Pangloss', approach:

 

"If you apply the same scrutiny to the claims of people who deny global climate change as you would to someone in other branches of science, then you are PC [whatever] and should be ashamed of yourself."

 

If I have misinterpreted you, please explain where.

 

The point I'm making is not that it's a bad idea to challenge statements with science (which I support), but that it's a bad idea to attack and ridicule people who don't do what they are told. It is detrimental to the health of the board and I won't sit idly by when it happens.

 

Your reply above to Aardvark is perfectly acceptable, for example, and the sort of thing we support and encourage.

[Aardvark]

Go ahead, since you're "maintaining the proper scientific attitude," be specfic and reference the study to which you are referring and call out errors in its methods and conclusions.

 

 

Go ahead and read my posts, i've already given reasons why i am not prepared to simply accept the conclusions of the IPCC report, which is treated with such high regard.

 

I stated earlier, that to accept the Global Warming Hypothesis, i'd like to see some independently verifiable predictions. That's a pretty basic requirement to accept a scientific theory.

 

I've been told in this thread that the Global Climatic System is thoroughly understood, despite the fact that climate scientists quite openly state that it is NOT thoroughly understood and there are large gaps in our knowledge and understanding.

 

I've also been told that such predicitions have been made, despite the fact that Climate scientists haven't been able to make ANY but the most vague and imprecise predictions.

 

 

 

Lets be blunt. Climate scientists admit that they still do not understand the Earths climate system. Climate scientists are unable to give any, even remotely precise, predictions.

 

Those two facts clearly demonstrate that the Global Warming Hypothesis is not proven. It is simply a strong hypothesis.

 

If you wish to demonstrate the veracity of the hypothesis, the burden of proof lies with you. So, rather than accuse me of 'handwaving' or 'conspiracy theories' how about telling us what clear, testable prediction has been made that will confirm this hypothesis?

[iNow]

I'll take your entire reponse to mean that you are not capable of citing specific studies and problems, as a further example of your "denialist handwaving," and I welcome the opportunity for you to prove me wrong.

[Aardvark]

I'll take your entire reponse to mean that you are not capable of citing specific studies and problems, as a further example of your "denialist handwaving," and I welcome the opportunity for you to prove me wrong.

 

I take your entire response to mean that you are not capable of citing a single specific prediction attributable to the Global Warming Hypothesis and are instead reverting to your tactic of name calling, I welcome the opportunity for you to prove me wrong.

[ParanoiA]

I'll take your entire reponse to mean that you are not capable of citing specific studies and problems, as a further example of your "denialist handwaving," and I welcome the opportunity for you to prove me wrong.

 

No, I take his response to mean that the onus is on you to prove the GW theory, using sources that are not tangled in politics and corruption. I think that's fair.

 

Now, it could very well be that these disreputable sources he's skeptical about are actually reputable and are a product of a smear campaign, or are being misrepresented. In that case, you either care enough to prove their good reputation, or you accept the stalemate.

 

And of course, a stalemate is not in his best interests either, for while the onus may be on those pushing the theory of GW, and/or the anthropologic cause, he's implicitly, willfully allowing himself to remain ignorant of a potential threat. I don't think that's smart for survival.

[iNow]

In that case, you either care enough to prove their good reputation, or you accept the stalemate.

I have grown tired or arguing evolution with a creationist.

 

The overwhelming majority of data supports my position. To suggest that the onus is on me to prove that the data is relevant and not some manifestation of political will is ignorant. Since the consensus view is what is being challenged in this thread, the attempted onus shift to me is inappropriate.

 

 

I asked him to be specific. He could not. I rest my case.

[ParanoiA]

The overwhelming majority of data supports my position. To suggest that the onus is on me to prove that the data is relevant and not some manifestation of political will is ignorant. Since the consensus view is what is being challenged in this thread, the attempted onus shift to me is inappropriate.

 

Did you not challenge the data in the Pit Bull thread based on the same reason? The data supported Lance's conclusions, but the data was suspect, for good reason, was it not?

 

I see Aardvark challenging the data over suspicion as well, and he too has given good reasons for doing so.

 

Lance couldn't defend his data to your satisfaction, if I remember correctly and you also pointed out that the onus was on him to prove it since he was making the claim Pit Bulls were dangerous.

 

So, what gives?

[bascule]

Unless "Aardvark" used to be called "Blade" that's not true, it was their first exchange. There may have been exchanges in other threads, but again, Bascule responded to a very specific set of quotes, insisting that they labeled him a denialist.

 

Actually, I said the quotes were anti-scientific. Here's where the "d-word" entered into the conversation:

 

Attack the reporting all you want, but when you attack the science out of ignorance, you're not being skeptical, you're just a denialist.

 

I'm only saying that that[/i'] attack was not warranted, and the fact that it was not challenged has been noted for the record.

 

"Attack!!!" Your continuing defense of anti-science is also noted. I might also note that Aardvark is engaging in some antiscientific trolling here with this "Global Warming Hypothesis" silliness, but chances are you don't care about that:

 

I stated earlier, that to accept the Global Warming Hypothesis, i'd like to see some independently verifiable predictions. That's a pretty basic requirement to accept a scientific theory.

 

Continuing multi-decadal increases in global mean surface temperature aren't good enough for you?

 

I've been told in this thread that the Global Climatic System is thoroughly understood, despite the fact that climate scientists quite openly state that it is NOT thoroughly understood and there are large gaps in our knowledge and understanding.

 

I've also been told that such predicitions have been made, despite the fact that Climate scientists haven't been able to make ANY but the most vague and imprecise predictions.

 

Here's an example:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5825/709

 

This paper scrutinizes observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and compares them to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

While the actual predictions undershot the observed outcomes, they are still within the stated range of uncertainties. This would indicate nonlinearities and feedback loops in the climate system which are not yet well-understood.

 

With each installment of the IPCC's reports they are continually refining their predictions, which now better match observed trends:

 

[Aardvark]

Continuing multi-decadal increases in global mean surface temperature aren't good enough for you?

 

No. Simply stating that there will be increases in temperatures isn't remotely good enough.

 

If Global Warming is an understood branch of sicence then it should be possible to come out with something a bit more precise. To give a figure of how much the temperature will rise by if CO2 levels rise by a particular amount.

 

 

Here's an example:

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5825/709

 

This paper scrutinizes observed climate trends for carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, and global sea level, and compares them to previous model projections as summarized in the 2001 assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

 

While the actual predictions undershot the observed outcomes, they are still within the stated range of uncertainties. This would indicate nonlinearities and feedback loops in the climate system which are not yet well-understood.

 

With each installment of the IPCC's reports they are continually refining their predictions, which now better match observed trends:

 

 

These graphs don't show any predictions, the IPCC predictions are so vague as to be useless and in the last few days they have had to be revised as some scientists are now expecting global temperatures to decline over the next decade. (Liebniz Study)

 

It is still the case that scientists do not fully understand the global climatic system, that it is not possible to make predictions based on the Global Warming Theory because of all the unknown and poorly understood variables.

 

So, until the Global Warming Theory can produce verifiable predictions, it remains a hypothesis, not proven science.

[SkepticLance]

To Bascule

 

For a person who chooses a nom de plume that means balance-bridge, your posts are often seriously out of balance. This lack of balance is demonstrated by an unwillingness to be sceptical of the dogma and political influence in this field.

 

We accept the basics of global warming. ie. warming and human influence. However, there are lots of areas for constructive scepticism. This includes the predictions made by global circulation models. These computer models cannot even simulate cloud formation in an accurate way, as shown in my reference on the other thread,

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html

 

Yet cloud formation is one of the most potent drivers of warming/cooling. As my reference states, this lack results in predictions at the 100 year mark having an error factor of more than plus or minus 100 Celsius!

 

To Rev

 

I have no argument with your comments. As I said, capitalism is about making money, and they will go about this in what they see as the best way possible. I have my own small business, and I will do what I have to to make money. However, capitalists are normally unwilling to break the law. It is therefore the duty of law makers, and those who police the law, to make sure that environmentally responsible behaviour is involved.

[swansont]

Unless "Aardvark" used to be called "Blade" that's not true, it was their first exchange. There may have been exchanges in other threads, but again, Bascule responded to a very specific set of quotes, insisting that they labeled him a denialist. That is what I mean by "front-loaded". But I'm not even saying that Aardvark isn't a "denialist" -- perhaps his later/other posts indicated that, I don't know. I'm only saying that that attack was not warranted, and the fact that it was not challenged has been noted for the record.

 

Now I know you guys don't like it when I don't let your angry retorts toward me become the last word on this subject, so do you have any other questions, or can we move on, the point having been made, even if it has not been acknowledged by the relevent parties?

 

Aardvark postedeight times (25,29,32,35,37,39,46,49), and bascule responded four times (27,33,43,48) before using "denialist" in the fifth (50).

[Pangloss]

Your continuing defense of anti-science is also noted.

 

That is a completely unfair characterization, and you know it. I've never accused you of being anti-religion just because you think the religious right has had too much influence in recent years on the Republican party. But here you are calling me anti-science. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm speaking out against.

 

You should be applauding my case, not fighting it. Our conversations over the years have helped to change my mind on a number of subjects, not the least of which is global warming, or voting Democrat in 2004. I'm sorry if I haven't fallen into lock-step with your position, but you should take that as a reason to politely fight on, not attack me with a label you know is inaccurate.

 

Aardvark postedeight times (25,29,32,35,37,39,46,49), and bascule responded four times (27,33,43,48) before using "denialist" in the fifth (50).

 

You're right, my mistake. But he was referring to specific quotes, and the point again is that demonization is not an argument.

[swansont]

These graphs don't show any predictions, the IPCC predictions are so vague as to be useless and in the last few days they have had to be revised as some scientists are now expecting global temperatures to decline over the next decade. (Liebniz Study)

 

"Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade" (quoted from the Nature abstract) has now become a decline?

[Aardvark]

According to Richard Wood of the Met Office

 

''Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-

warming trend over the next 10-year period''

[bascule]

These graphs don't show any predictions, the IPCC predictions are so vague as to be useless

 

Yes, specific predictions as to the carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, global sea level, and global mean surface temperature are "so vague as to be useless"

 

What? Did you even bother looking at the paper? No, of course not, deny deny deny!

 

So, until the Global Warming Theory can produce verifiable predictions, it remains a hypothesis, not proven science.

 

The sky is green, the sun is cold, gravity makes things fall up, and sand tastes absolutely delicious?

 

Am I just wasting my time finding the information you request? You don't clearly even bother looking at it.

 

This conversation is about as productive as defending evolution against creationists.

 

That is a completely unfair characterization, and you know it. I've never accused you of being anti-religion just because you think the religious right has had too much influence in recent years on the Republican party. But here you are calling me anti-science. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm speaking out against.

 

You should be applauding my case, not fighting it. Our conversations over the years have helped to change my mind on a number of subjects, not the least of which is global warming, or voting Democrat in 2004. I'm sorry if I haven't fallen into lock-step with your position, but you should take that as a reason to politely fight on, not attack me with a label you know is inaccurate.

 

Pangloss, I don't deny you've made a large degree of progress towards scientific understanding of the matter, but you still have a habit of busting out some O'Reillyesque talking points on the matter in conversations which otherwise are dealing strictly with the science...

[iNow]

So, what gives?

 

I have just re-read each and every single one of my posts in this thread. I have made no claims. There is no onus on me to prove anything. What gives, indeed.

 

 

Why do I feel like I'm being asked to show that gravity is an attractive force?

 

 

I am not the one claiming the science is invalid due to politicization of it's results. I asked the person who is doing this to be specific, to reference particular studies and explain where and how their data is invalid.

 

The response was basically, "nuh uhh... nanner nanner boo boo... Why don't YOU prove YOUR side!"

 

I have made no claims, only requests that those who have show something legitimate in support of them.

 

If you feel otherwise, please quote specifically where I've made a claim that requires support, and I'll gladly support it.

[ParanoiA]

I have just re-read each and every single one of my posts in this thread. I have made no claims. There is no onus on me to prove anything. What gives, indeed.

 

So you're not making the claim that GW is a valid theory? Funny, I read all of your posts and I'm seeing otherwise. No, you didn't say "I hereby claim...nanner nanner boo boo..", rather you took issue with Aardvark's insistence that politics are too mangled with every single scientific source, demanding specifics. He replied with examples and further insisted that the onus is on the GW crowd to prove their case. This is a logical, progressive turn of events that puts the ball in your court.

 

I don't understand your issue. You may just have to agree to disagree, because every scientific fact you provide him, he's just going to counter back with politics too ingrained with science. Personally, I agree with his skepticism, but I'm not on board with the notion of a 100% invasion of corruption of politics and science. No, he didn't say this, but he has effectively implied this by using it to counter every scientific point made by everyone knowledgable on the matter.

 

I am not the one claiming the science is invalid due to politicization of it's results. I asked the person who is doing this to be specific' date=' to reference particular studies and explain where and how their data is invalid.

 

The response was basically, "nuh uhh... nanner nanner boo boo... Why don't YOU prove YOUR side!" [/quote']

 

Well there was this one:

 

You do know that NASA got their data wrong don't you? They have publically (although very quietly) admitted it.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate116.xml

http://www.thestar.com/article/246027

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister...le_1804986.php

 

And, really, unless you've been living in a closet for the last 20 years or if you're young and naive enough, you already know politics has poisoned the issue. Talk about asking to show gravity is an attractive force...

[iNow]

I don't disagree that there are politics interfering with us on this issue. I am challenging the broad sweeping, unsubstatiated, blanket accusation that the science itself is wrong due to this political misinterpretation and/or misuse.

 

The science is valid. If someone feels otherwise, show us specifically where and and why so we can view the concerns in a transparent manner.

 

What I take significant issue with is the continued attempts to simply sow seeds of doubt, what I have repeatedly called handwaving, without reference to specific data.

 

The data is valid, regardless of what the politics use it for. This is my stance.

 

 

Additionally, the single errored data point from NASA has been covered by me personally 3 or 4 times that I can remember on this site, and also by Bascule with abundant clarity in post #64 of this very thread.

 

 

Was that closet reference something to do with my sexuality? You ad homming little SOB...

[SkepticLance]

The problem here is not the scientific data. Hopefully, we can all accept that as valid. The problem is interpretation.

 

As I have said many times before, humans cannot predict the future, unless it is for a very simple matter. It does not matter whether we use a crystal ball, a uigee board, or a computer model - precognition is beyond us. At least predictions based on such a complex subject with so many unknown factors.

 

The various scenarios put forward by such as the IPCC as to the next 100 years are so inaccurate that they are essentially valueless. I could probably do as well reading the tea leaves. Which I ignore in order to predict what my own very fallible opinion suggests. Which makes me as accurate (or otherwise) as the IPCC.

 

I predict continued warming at a rate similar to the past 30 years, and a 3 mm (or similar) rise in sea level each year, until a couple of decades after humans get carbon emissions in balance. I bet this prediction is closer than most of the IPCC scenarios!

[ParanoiA]

Was that closet reference something to do with my sexuality? You ad homming little SOB...

 

Believe me, the last thing on my mind is your sexuality little one.

[Aardvark]

Yes, specific predictions as to the carbon dioxide concentration, global mean air temperature, global sea level, and global mean surface temperature are "so vague as to be useless"

 

What? Did you even bother looking at the paper?

 

I did indeed look at the paper, i thought the idea of 'predicticing' the past was most interesting. On that basis, my history books correctly predicted the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

 

No, of course not, deny deny deny!

 

Indeed, deny, deny!

 

Or better yet, give an actual verifiable prediction. The IPCC hasn't bothered doing that. It's given a whole range of possibilities for the future, pretty much covering every base. A bit like a weather forcast that says the weather could be dry, but it could be wet, it could be warm or else it could be cold.

 

So, until the Global Warming Hypothesis can actually give independently verifiable predictions, it remains a hypothesis.

 

The sky is green, the sun is cold, gravity makes things fall up, and sand tastes absolutely delicious?

 

Am I just wasting my time finding the information you request? You don't clearly even bother looking at it.

 

I simply ask for an independently verifiable prediction, simple enough and the basis of the scientific method.

 

This conversation is about as productive as defending evolution against creationists.

 

You do like you labelling and personal smears don't you?

 

You can defend evolution by reference to various proofs. Evolution can be used to make predictions. Or i suppose you could simply resort to name calling.

 

 

The test of a scientific theory is when it can be used to make independently verifiable predictions. It's a simple test, it's the basis of the scientific method. And you call me anti scientific for sticking to it!