40 thoughts on “Obama’s face added to Mount Rushmore”
David K.
And nobody honors greenpeace wackos anymore…
Chris Evans
Assholes. Can I say that on the new blog?
And isn’t “global warming” out, in favor of, dang, I can’t remember the exact term. Climate something, that basically means “we’re not sure if it’s getting hotter or colder, but it’s our fault and we need to panic RIGHT NOW.
David K.
Global Climate Change is the term you are looking for. Global Warming was a poor (and innacurate choice). Although the overall temperature is trending upward, that doesn’t mean everything will constantly get warmer (and “Global Warming” advocates have never made that claim).
If you really want to rile Brendan’s feathers, mistake climate and weather 🙂
gahrie
“that doesn’t mean everything will constantly get warmer (and “Global Warming” advocates have never made that claim).”
Really???
Because the way I remember it, that is precisely what Al Gore and his ilk claimed.
Brendan LoyPost author
Chris, “assholes” isn’t a word that raises any major vulgarity alarm bells around here, but even if it was, you’d have my permission to use it vis a vis Greenpeace protesters. Also Code Pink, Fred Phelps and his minions, the giant-aborted-fetus-poster people, and Joe Biden. 🙂
Gahrie, you’re incorrect. “Al Gore and his ink” never claimed “everything will constantly get warmer” — at least the mainstream people who know what they’re talking about didn’t. (I don’t doubt you can find counterexamples consisting of isolated idiots saying idiotic things. This proves nothing, of course.) They claimed that average global temperature would increase sharply over time, and they continue to claim this. But they never said it would rise every single year without any pauses or dips, and they certainly never said we wouldn’t see cold or wintry weather ever again. On the contrary, increased average global temperatures — warmer CLIMATE — can potentially, in some places under some circumstances, lead to increased individual cold/wintry WEATHER events, because of the complexity of the climate system. It was in response to this fact — and in reaction to the nonsensical “OMG IT’S SNOWING OUTSIDE, AL GORE IS AN IDIOT” bullshit from Drudge & co., that “global warming” was “re-branded” to “global climate change.” The core premise remains the same, however: on a timescale of decades and centuries (not necessarily individual years, and certainly not individual weather events), average global temperatures are increasing, in significant part due to human activity.
Brendan LoyPost author
P.S. A caveat: Al Gore is really a poor spokesman for the rational, scientifically based viewpoint on this issue, because he has tended to overemphasize individual weather events like Katrina — i.e., making the same weather vs. climate mistake that you skeptics constantly make in reverse. So if you want to argue that Al Gore has said stupid things, I’ll agree with you. But if your position is that the AGW movement has fundamentally shifted from a belief that “everything will constantly get warmer” — everything, everywhere, on a timescale of years and months and weeks and days and individual weather events — to a wishy-woshy, indistinct belief in “climate change,” you’re wrong on both ends of the equation. The basic premise, as I said, remains precisely the same; the concept has just been re-labeled so as not to confuse five-year-olds like Matt Drudge.
Chris Evans
No, no, “global climate change” is on the way out too. It’s the new up-and-comer that replaces it, something like climate “volatility”, but that’s not catchy enough. I’ve seen it a few times but not enough that it stuck other than as a new change.
And I’m not confusing climate and weather. I think that’s what the climate whatever folks are doing, and see the changing neomenclature as a sign of that. I bellieve that the anthropogenic component is not significant, and that our best hope of keeping six billion folks alive, and improving their situation, is technology and economic growth, and that drastic measures should be considered carefully. I also believe that the fuss over “green house gasses” is an excuse to continue bashing the US over air pollution; we’ve made such great strides in controlling actual smog and particulate matter that the air-pollution apparatchiks (please ignore the negative connotation) have to switch focus to something we can’t see. Given the real problem of air pollution that remains elsewhere, this is a bit silly; there’s plenty left to be done improving air quality, but it’s mostly in places where your comfortable activist would rather not spend his time. Although China, despite its bad air, is quite pleasant, and I highly recommend at least visiting. /tourist board
But I digress. As to assholes, those folks you mention, Brendan, are among the ones I’d have taken out and shot, if I were king of the forest. Well, if I were king of the forest AND not committed to the principal that everyone has a right to act like a douchebag, and other small-l libertarian philosophical ideals.
Brendan LoyPost author
“everyone has a right to act like a douchebag”
That should really be in the Bill of Rights, explicitly. 🙂
David K.
“But I digress. As to assholes, those folks you mention, Brendan, are among the ones I’d have taken out and shot, if I were king of the forest. Well, if I were king of the forest AND not committed to the principal that everyone has a right to act like a douchebag, and other small-l libertarian philosophical ideals.”
So you wouldn’t shoot them? Sounds like you are just another wishy-washy liberal who is soft on crime!
Chris Evans
No, not for being assholes. It’s not that I wouldn’t want to, but I take it as a given that some folks think I’m an asshole, and I’d rather that wasn’t a capital offense.
Now, if somebody wants to beat the stuffing out of ol’ Fred and his minions, I’d be inclined to sympathize. And while I don’t hate Biden, I do think think he could use a swift kick in the balls every couple of months.
But that would be wrong. Unless ol’ Joe has a fetish for that kind of thing. That would be wrong, too, but in a different way, and he’s welcome to indulge in it as long as I don’t have to read about it.
David K.
Heh, sorry Chris, i was just joking around, i forgot the 😉 at the end
Chris Evans
And here I figured suggesting Biden receive a bi-monthly kick in the balls for no particular reason other than being Joe Biden would work for the ;-).
It means that all of you claiming that we understand climate, global warming and their causes are wrong.
I’ll take Tilting at Strawmen for $300, Alex…
Allow me to adjust gahrie’s points to something approaching the scientific consensus on global warming:
A) We don’t completely understand climate
A.1) We do have variable–from minimal to fairly extensive–knowledge concerning many components of climate
A.2) We are learning more about these components daily
B) Humanity’s effect on the individual components of climate can range from zero to rather substantial
B.1) The full effect of humanity’s acitivities on the complex climate system are yet to be determined, but the effect is certainly not zero and is potentially large
B.2) The current data indicate that anthropogenic activity is statistically likely to be driving current changes in climate, which may result in outcomes that would generally be considered undersirable if one wishes to maintain the present organization of our civilization
I’ll also add:
C) The uncertainty of our climate modeling capabilities is certainly an important caveat and will need constant re-evaluation
D) The data indicate a strong possibility of positive feedback cycles that could accelerate climate changes
Given all of the above, D in particular, many feel that it is more prudent to take action now regarding mitigation strategies rather than wait for greater statistical confidence regarding anthropogenic effects.
Of course, everyone likely has their own individual tipping-point for the acceptance of near-term, X cost actions to prevent long-term consequences of Y probability and Z magnitude. YMMV.
I try to keep up with much of the relevant literature (though it is decidedly out of my field), but I am not fully convinced, for example, that we will necessarily reach any of the “doomsday” scenarios. However, the general trend in the literature is of greater confidence in anthropogenic effects that may result in–what I would consider–negative consequences. My valuation of Y & Z are dependent solelysufficiently large that I am willing to spend a fair amount for X, particularly given the real and potential ancillary benefits of cleaner technologies (i.e., reduce pollution, prevent further ocean acidification, etc.).
My question to those that deny anthropogenic climate change: what are your considerations regarding X, Y & Z? That is, what data do you need to see to reach your tipping-point?
David K.
“That is, what data do you need to see to reach your tipping-point?”
Unfortunately many of the climate-change denyers are of the type to ignore data that does not fit with their pre-defined set of acceptable outcomes. Many of them will ascribe the data to some vast global liberal conspiracy rather than consider the consequences and validity of the data. gahrie has allready demonstrated that he is one of those people by decrying global climate change as a shame perpetrated by the left wing and in particular Al Gore for some nefarious unspecified reasons.
gahrie
“gahrie has allready demonstrated that he is one of those people by decrying global climate change as a shame perpetrated by the left wing and in particular Al Gore for some nefarious unspecified reasons.”
???? I have been quite clear on what the reasons are. For the radical left it is an attempt to control our nation’s (and the world’s) economy and to destroy capitalism and free markets. Al Gore is simply in it for money and power.
gahrie
“That is, what data do you need to see to reach your tipping-point?”
Well, to begin with, I would like to see the proper placement of weather stations and consistency in the use of these weather stations.
Next I like to see a computer model that accurately predicts the past climate when historical numbers are entered into it.
Lastly I’d like to see an explanation of past climate shifts, (how they were caused and how they were “solved’) and why the threatened future ones are any different.
I believe that climate shifts are a naturally occuring phenomena, and are self correcting. The Earth is constantly changing, and constantly seeking equilibrium.
Now to turn the argument:
What would convince you that man’s effect on the climate is negligible?
David K.
“For the radical left it is an attempt to control our nation’s (and the world’s) economy and to destroy capitalism and free markets. Al Gore is simply in it for money and power.”
Congratulations on confirming yourself as a whackjob.
David K.
“I believe that climate shifts are a naturally occuring phenomena, and are self correcting. The Earth is constantly changing, and constantly seeking equilibrium. ”
Guess what, no one disputes this. You might as well be saying “I believe the Earth is round”. What you appear to be ignoring is that the data shows change IN ADDITION TO these natural variations. Not that I am surprised you are completely ignorant of what the actual problem is, just pointing it out for everyones benefit.
gahrie
“Guess what, no one disputes this. You might as well be saying “I believe the Earth is round”. What you appear to be ignoring is that the data shows change IN ADDITION TO these natural variations. Not that I am surprised you are completely ignorant of what the actual problem is, just pointing it out for everyones benefit.”
1) What data? The failed climate models? The misplaced weather stations?
2) How do you know the changes are additional to natural variations? We don’t know what the natural variations are.
3) I know what the problem is supposed to be, I’m just not willing to destroy the US economy and standard of living based on unproven assertions.
4) Do you deny that Gore stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon trading and other “green” industries if the Democrats pass their bill?
5) Why do you never answer my questions as I attempt to answer yours?
David K.
Because you never actually do answer mine, and your questions are red herrings from the real issue and based on faulty and flawed premises. You believe there is a liberal conspiracy to turn us all into hippy communists, how do you expect anyone to even BEGIN to take you seriously?
What data? The failed climate models? The misplaced weather stations?
What are you babbling about? What failed climate models? What misplaced weather stations? And are you positing that if science makes one mistake, all of its assertions are suspect? You realize that’s an invalid argument, correct?
2) How do you know the changes are additional to natural variations? We don’t know what the natural variations are.
Nobody knows for sure that they are, but that’s what the available evidence points to. And we do know what the natural variations are:
That’s not to imply we don’t have more to learn, but we have a good general idea about what the natural variations in the climate were like.
What your link shows is not that we suddenly have to rethink what we know about climate change, it shows what is obvious: warming can be caused by other factors. People commonly die from old age. Having a person die from a bullet to the head does not suddenly mean we need to rethink whether all of those other people really died from old age. The same effect can happen from multiple causes.
3) I know what the problem is supposed to be, I’m just not willing to destroy the US economy and standard of living based on unproven assertions.
What gives you the impression the US economy will be destroyed by efforts to curb climate change?
As far as unproven assertions, of course they are unproven, they are science! It seems you are unfamiliar with science. The only thing that can be proven is math. Everything else, including gravity, is a model.
4) Do you deny that Gore stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon trading and other “green” industries if the Democrats pass their bill?
I don’t know what Gore stands to make or not make, but that doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not he is correct. He either makes a reasonable argument or he doesn’t. And I think he does, although with some flair for the dramatic, to be sure.
gahrie
“What are you babbling about? What failed climate models? What misplaced weather stations? ”
There is not a climate model out there that you can plug historical data into, and it will accurately reflect historical climate. There is tons of data available on how many (perhaps a majority) of the weather stations the at are used to collect climate data are misplaced…ie on roofs in the middle of a city, next to air conditioner vents and near large patches of asphalt. These will all produce artifically high temperature. There is also some controversy about which stations are included in various studies. I am not only asserting that the science this is based is is questionable, but that the basic data used is false also.
Now to turn the argument:
What would convince you that man’s effect on the climate is negligible?
gahrie, I’m perfectly happy to answer this hypothetical (and would count myself a piss-poor scientist if I couldn’t answer it).
I would need to see a shift in the relevant incoming data of a magnitude that indicates no warming trend and reliably suggests previous data, upon which current predictions have been made, are sufficiently flawed to warrant its discount.
No climatologist would assert that any particular set of data from which climate trends are drawn is without criticism. However, there are at present so many parallel lines of evidence that trend in the same direction, each with different and overlapping strength-and-weakness profiles that mitigate some of the concerns about the flaws in most any set: I personally find this compelling.
In response to your list: assuming the incoming data regarding anthropogenic climate change doesn’t substantially shift against the current consensus, I personally would not be willing to wait for us to work out all the kinks before acting. Given D) in my post @ 16, I think the precautionary principle places calls for more than token efforts in the near-term, which is why I support some of the current efforts.
In some ways, I think the analogy to an impending asteroid impact is illustrative without some of the weighty political bullshit that mires GW: An asteroid of comparable size to that of the KT extinction is detected. With current flawed technology, it is estimated that the asteroid has X% chance of striking the earth in Y years, and to produce a sufficient intervention (i.e., a nuclear rocket with Bruce Willis on board) with Z% chance of successfully preventing impact will cost Q billions of dollars (a price that may dramatically increase as Y decreases). Mess around with those variables and everyone will come up with different short- and long-term risks that are worth taking. Prudence requires some balance of continually refining X & Z before Y & Q run out…
I am not only asserting that the science this is based is is questionable, but that the basic data used is false also.
gahrie, you’re not a climatologist, right? Every climate paper I’ve read has discussed the relevant caveats of the data sets used and has offered some test of external validity, often trying to correct for the issues. What convinces you that the vast majority of climatologists don’t know they’re using “false” data and “questionable” methods; and/or that you know better than they do?
gahrie
“What convinces you that the vast majority of climatologists don’t know they’re using “false” data and “questionable” methods; and/or that you know better than they do?”
Frankly, I don’t know. However I know I personally would never rely on a model that has been tested by entering historical data and which doesn’t accurately reflect historical outcomes. None of the climate models can predict historical climate based on historical data.
As far as the data, I’m sure most of them expect the government’s weather stations to provide them with accurate data. The sad truth is that this isn’t so. I have seen dozens of pictures of government weather stations sited next to parking lots, air conditioner vents, on top of asphalt roofs and similar heat sources. The government has also changed which stations are included over the years, also skewing the data.
As far as your scenario is concerned, in that case I would still not support a solution that took billions out of our economy, made the price of almost everything more expensive, gave the money in the form of meteor credits to the politically connected, and had very little to do with actually building the rocket.
There is not a climate model out there that you can plug historical data into, and it will accurately reflect historical climate.
Huh? Link me to where you are reading this tripe, because I think you are repeating stuff you’ve read on the internet and don’t understand it yourself.
That goes for the whole “misplaced” weather station thing as well. It makes absolutely no sense.
Also, the irony that I was responding point by point to a post where you complained that someone did not answer all of your questions and you basically ignored the entire thing was not lost on me.
gahrie
Misplaced weather stations:
“”89 percent of the stations–nearly 9 of every 10–fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements.”
“With only 11% of surveyed stations being of acceptable quality, the raw temperature data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy decisions.””
“Ironically, model worthiness and accuracy can be quickly assessed by simply plugging in yesterday’s numbers and seeing if the model actually yields results that are aligned with the known history. Yet to date, climate models have failed miserably. Though there is hope for further improvement, there is no current climate model that can, when applied to the documented past, accurately re-forecast the known historical record, much less portend what could be happening to the weather next week, least wise the next century. Climate modeling has yet to rise to a level of sophistication that allows us to accurately predict the future.”
As far as the data, I’m sure most of them expect the government’s weather stations to provide them with accurate data. The sad truth is that this isn’t so.
Honestly, I think it’s far more likely that scientists using the data produced by weather stations know their limitations. In fact, these objections have been around for a long time and are generally corrected for.
I know I personally would never rely on a model that has been tested by entering historical data and which doesn’t accurately reflect historical outcomes. None of the climate models can predict historical climate based on historical data.
As stated previously, climate models are necessarily imperfect. However, like all information technologies, they show continued improvements with greater computer power and increasing data. Climate models were able to acceptably reproduce the previous 100+ years (within statistical error) back in the 2001 IPCC report, and greater fidelity over longer ranges of time are continually being acheived. Models are an approximation to the real world, which have been shown to be reasonable approximations over a wide range of conditions, according the consensus of climate scientists. Data-model mismatches are taken seriously, leading to a re-evaluation of both to continue improvements. Results are more robust when multiple models, from different organizations around the world, using different data sets, are found to agree on predictions.
Tangent: It’s a sad irony, I think, that those most likely to reject the current science (often justifying such a stance with claims of inadequacy) tend to be those most resistant to improving the funding situations for the very research organizations they criticize. It’s a hell of a Catch-22.
Too often, I think those that reject current scientific knowledge (usually claims by non-scientists, against practically every field) fall into the “vaporware” trap: the theoretical framework is imperfect in such-and-such ways, therefore it is of no value. This asserts a false dichotomy that is gratifyingly simple, if intellectually bankrupt, that inhibits further progress.
As far as your scenario is concerned, in that case I would still not support a solution that took billions out of our economy, made the price of almost everything more expensive, gave the money in the form of meteor credits to the politically connected, and had very little to do with actually building the rocket.
Ignoring that you intentionally politicized a thought experiment that was specifically meant to avoid the present political mudflinging…Taking your comments in this thread as a whole, including this one above, it’s probably a reasonable assumption that you value near-term economic concerns over long-term potential consequences more than I do. That’s fine–there is no “right answer” to personal preferences, and I am willing to admit that we may never line up particularly well on questions of this nature.
I have my own nuanced opinions on the veracity of IPCC claims (it is in my nature and training to defer to the consensus of trained professionals and follow the trends of the field, but hard questons should always be continually asked) as well as the proposed and enacted government-based climate policies (too many problems with spinal rigidity, jingoism and expedience in our earmarkophilic officials, which can lead to vague and rudderless half-solutions of unnecessary expense). However, I really have little patience for commonly irrational nature of climate discussions. Rational skepticism is a healthy state of mind: one should always seek out properly-informed contrarian points of view in order to continually evaluate personal stances. It’s pseudoscientific denialism, however, when one preferentially seeks opinions that conform to preconceived beliefs. This happens all the time on both sides of this particular debate, and it drives me up the wall.
I am not accusing gahrie of denialism, by the way. (In fact, I think David discredits himself more than gahrie with some of his comments of this vein.) All I hope for is that everyone will honestly ask themselves what possible and reasonably acheivable new information over the next years/decades will substantially shift their current position. I can comfortably and confidently assert that I’m likely to follow the consensus statistical confidence of climate scientists, whether it increases or decreases. How about you?
David K.
” (In fact, I think David discredits himself more than gahrie with some of his comments of this vein.) ”
Really? You think he has more credit when he denies man has any impact on global climate change and that the whole thing is a vast liberal conspiracy aimed at destroying capitalism and enriching Al Gore? I’m curious how I have done more to discredit myself than he has done, really.
Search for Watts on that last one, there is a 4 part series on Watts’s analysis.
Seriously, peruse, digest it, and come back and give me an honest assessment of what you think after being presented with evidence to the contrary.
Secondarily, I wonder if you had considered that the overarching claim isn’t that warming will occur only in the United States. What about the rest of the planet?
Faulty climate models:
I think you need to observe the fact that while that article talks in vague terms about how climate models are difficult to make accurate (that’s true) there is no actual analysis of the models themselves, so I don’t really see how one can draw any sort of conclusion about the validity of the models from that article.
I really wish that people that consider themselves skeptics would observe that to truly be a skeptic you must be skeptical of everything, even skepticism. There’s a pattern here, amateur skeptics make assertions that are then summarily smacked down by anyone knowing the first thing about science. It happens time and time again. Do this for me, next time you come across information like this, try and find out what the scientific community thinks about the analysis. Especially on a topic as hot (no pun intended) as this, there are many people who have gotten so sick of uninformed criticism that they’ve taken up the cause of refuting it all. So you can often find good articles on specific criticisms (like your first one).
In your second link, there’s not really much in the way of specific criticism, so you really can’t get informed response, sorry.
My point–if too subtle–was that claims of “a vast liberal conspiracy aimed at destroying capitalism and enriching Al Gore” (however accurate that represents gahrie’s comments and actual opinions) should be sufficiently self-discrediting that there is no need for hyperbole, mischaracterization and/or ad hominem. If his, or anyone’s, claims do have any (perceived, potential) merit, it’s more appropriate to address them with quality counter-claims than fallaciously dismiss them.
The point of my aside is that sloppy thinking leads to tractionless arguments that typically degenerate into uncivil pissing matches; on a larger scale, I believe, this leads to insitutionalized obdurateness that can constrain societal progress and cause governmental paralysis. I generally detest this type of argumentation, however natural it may be, and I think it’s important to call others on it even if they’re ostensibly “on my side” in a debate.
David K.
Perhaps that would be true scientizzle if it were a gross exageration of what he was saying, but its not, as can be demonstrated by this very thread. I brought it brings along with it a gigantic credibility problem when trying to take any of gahrie’s statements seriously. If someone tells you that the Earth is flat and people will fall of the edge if they sail too far, and then proceed to argue with you about, say, plate tectonics, are you really going to take them seriously? They have demonstrated that they are willing to ignore overwhelming evidence that contradicts there position and base their arguments on ideas put forth by those who also ignore that same evidence and claim (using strawmen like you mention above) that if something about the model isn’t 100% understood the model is completely useless.
Why shouldn’t I call gahrie on his admitted extreme bias on this issue? You can try and argue with him all you want, but you might as well argue with Tom Cruise about the benefits of psychiatry. He’s allready taken a position that says whatever evidence you provide is wrong. It’s not too dissimilar to trying to prove the existence of God to an atheist using the Bible. They allready have dissallowed the evidence you are goign to use as being of any valid use.
I have attempted on numerous occasion to engage gahrie in civil debate and it failed in every attempt, so I made the very conscious decision to stop trying after awhile because it will never lead anywhere. In order for discourse to be worth the effort you have to have participants who are open to considering the opposing side. When someone has demonstrated ad nauseum that they aren’t willing to do that you think its wrong to call them on it? If my pointing out the fact that gahrie believes in a vast liberal conspiracy about global climate change is somehow more discrediting of me than it is of him, I guess I have to accept that your standards are just different than most peoples on what is or isn’t reasonable.
If my pointing out the fact that gahrie believes in a vast liberal conspiracy about global climate change is somehow more discrediting of me than it is of him, I guess I have to accept that your standards are just different than most peoples on what is or isn’t reasonable.
First, I think it’s entirely likely that my standards are, in fact, different. I’m okay with this, and hold the (perhaps wildly flawed) notion that the world would be a better place with standards closer to my own and I should lead by example.
Secondly, your interpretation of my comments are seemingly divorced from their intended meaning.
David discredits himself more than gahrie with some of his comments means: some of David’s comments ascribe to gahrie a viewpoint that may in fact be a (small or large) mischaracterization of gahrie’s claims; while I may strongly disgree with gahrie’s claims as I interpret them, David mischaracterizing gahrie’s position is unlikely to affect my opinion of gahrie’s claims and reflects poorly on David as the constructor of his own straw men.
Shorter Scientizzle: gahrie may be crazy, but David screaming “gahrie’s crazy” doesn’t make either look good
What I didn’t mean was that I find any sort of equivalence in your different underlying premises. I think David & I are in far greater agreement on the issue in question than gahrie & I. I tend to think in a Bayesian manner; thus, a similarly badly-formed argument would be relatively more damaging to my perception of the credibility of David’s side versus gahrie’s.
You two don’t get along (online at least). I get it. By all means, call each other whatever you like and argue the way you please. I’m just registering my distaste for this mode of discourse, which I’ve watched in pieces over the past few months…This just happens to be the only thread in which I’ve participated thus far @ Bloy.com version 2.0 3.0 4.0(?) .
David K.
I could understand your point if I were throwing up strawmen Scientizzle, but sadly I’m not.
“For the radical left it is an attempt to control our nation’s (and the world’s) economy and to destroy capitalism and free markets. Al Gore is simply in it for money and power.”
Its in this very thread. It’s what he believes. He has also said in this very thread he believes that man has NO affect on global climate change. He has mentioned before (i’ll try and find the comment) that the scientists involved are also part of this conspiracy.
So my pointing out that he’s crazy somehow reflects badly on me because…? Sorry I fail to understand how thats logical if he IS in fact exhibiting behavior that validates my claim.
It would be entirely different if he had said: “I am skeptical that humans are involved in global warming, and I think there are some people who are using it to take advantage of people”. If I then called him a crazy nutjob who ignored science and believed in a vast conspiracy, then you would absolutely be justified in saying that I was discrediting myself. But pointing out what he himself has proudly admitted to? That discredits ME? I mean I can understand if criticizing gahries frankly absurd beliefs caused me to be discredited by someone who shares them, that makes sense, but to someone who I would think could plainly see just how far out in left field they are?
In any case, i’ll conclude by pointing out, its not a strawman to point out someones belief in something if they proudly admit to believing it.
David, regarding “For the radical left it is an attempt to control our nation’s (and the world’s) economy and to destroy capitalism and free markets. Al Gore is simply in it for money and power”…I think this statement is one of those self-discrediting claims I alluded to.
I think, though, turning that into “You believe there is a liberal conspiracy to turn us all into hippy communists” does misinterpret the intended meaning (hardcore anarcho-collectivists may or may not buy the science of global warming, but see an opportunity to force changes in their favored direction through policies designed to undercut the status quo by playing on the fears of global warming).
You have also stated in this thread:
* “[gahrie will] ignore data that does not fit with [his] pre-defined set of acceptable outcomes”
* “[gahrie has] allready taken a position that says whatever evidence [Scientizzle will] provide is wrong”
* “[gahrie is] completely ignorant of what the actual problem is”
These may all, in fact, be true. I have not come to these conclusions myself, though I have no doubt that I’m unfamiliar with all of gahrie’s statements on this topic. If these are not true, however, then you have made comments that mischaracterize his position. I welcome any supporting evidence for these claims.
Your statement that “He has also said in this very thread he believes that man has NO affect on global climate change” is not actually what was said in #15.
So my pointing out that he’s crazy somehow reflects badly on me because…?
Because it’s entirely plausible that gahrie is not actually crazy–that you just strongly disagree with each other–and you do a dis-service to the both of you to make such claims.
David K.
There is a difference between disagreeing with someone, and their view being so far beyond reasonable that its not plain crazy (not in the clinical sense mind you). If gahrie supports the NRA or supports abortion, those are things I disagree with but see as reasonable. Believing that global climate change is a vast left wing conspiracy whose goal is to utterly destroy capitalism? That is pretty crazy. Right up there with “we didn’t actually go to the moon”. Is there a remote chance he’s right? I suppose in the same sense there’s a remote chance that unicorns really do exist.
And yes, you are correct some of my views on gahrie stem from earlier “discussions” with him in other threads based on his previous behavior which is entirely consistent with his denial of facts he finds inconvenient to his stated and demonstrated worldview, as well as statements that are just beyond belief. He has also stated that people who don’t have adequate medical care are that way by choice. Somewhat less crazy than a vast conspiracy of global warming, but still demonstrative of a easily seen partisan bias and inability to accept facts which are counter to what he wishes to believe.
This is not a case of finding someone who i just don’t get along with and disagree with on politics. There are plenty of people like that out there i’m sure, and a vast majority of them I would not characterize as crazy. gahrie is however in that class of individuals, who through their actions, has demonstrated the qualities i ascribed to him.
You are of course free to continue to try and have a discussion with him, I just figured I would point out that he’s behavior has led myself (and others, Becky has said it too if your curious for a second opinion) to believe he has no interest in being open to new information. He’s picked his views and they have been etched in stone, immuteable to fact and science alike. I stand by what I said, that based on his beliefs he’s crazy (not in the clinical sense), partisan, and close-minded. Take from that what you will I guess.
gahrie
“He has also stated that people who don’t have adequate medical care are that way by choice. Somewhat less crazy than a vast conspiracy of global warming, but still demonstrative of a easily seen partisan bias and inability to accept facts which are counter to what he wishes to believe.”
In response, see:
“In a new study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill, commissioned by the Employment Policies Institute, it was determined that 43% of people counted in the overblown 47 million uninsured estimate actually have incomes of at least 250% of the poverty level (averaging about $65,000) and could afford to purchase private health coverage. They are not insured because they choose not to pay for insurance.”
“I would point out that he’s behavior has led myself (and others, Becky has said it too if your curious for a second opinion) to believe he has no interest in being open to new information. He’s picked his views and they have been etched in stone, immuteable to fact and science alike.”
If that were true, I wouldn’t engage in dialogs with you. Just for the record, when have you ever shown yourself to be open to new information? I have been very careful not to engage in ad hominen attack, unfortunately this is not true of you and others.
And nobody honors greenpeace wackos anymore…
Assholes. Can I say that on the new blog?
And isn’t “global warming” out, in favor of, dang, I can’t remember the exact term. Climate something, that basically means “we’re not sure if it’s getting hotter or colder, but it’s our fault and we need to panic RIGHT NOW.
Global Climate Change is the term you are looking for. Global Warming was a poor (and innacurate choice). Although the overall temperature is trending upward, that doesn’t mean everything will constantly get warmer (and “Global Warming” advocates have never made that claim).
If you really want to rile Brendan’s feathers, mistake climate and weather 🙂
“that doesn’t mean everything will constantly get warmer (and “Global Warming” advocates have never made that claim).”
Really???
Because the way I remember it, that is precisely what Al Gore and his ilk claimed.
Chris, “assholes” isn’t a word that raises any major vulgarity alarm bells around here, but even if it was, you’d have my permission to use it vis a vis Greenpeace protesters. Also Code Pink, Fred Phelps and his minions, the giant-aborted-fetus-poster people, and Joe Biden. 🙂
Gahrie, you’re incorrect. “Al Gore and his ink” never claimed “everything will constantly get warmer” — at least the mainstream people who know what they’re talking about didn’t. (I don’t doubt you can find counterexamples consisting of isolated idiots saying idiotic things. This proves nothing, of course.) They claimed that average global temperature would increase sharply over time, and they continue to claim this. But they never said it would rise every single year without any pauses or dips, and they certainly never said we wouldn’t see cold or wintry weather ever again. On the contrary, increased average global temperatures — warmer CLIMATE — can potentially, in some places under some circumstances, lead to increased individual cold/wintry WEATHER events, because of the complexity of the climate system. It was in response to this fact — and in reaction to the nonsensical “OMG IT’S SNOWING OUTSIDE, AL GORE IS AN IDIOT” bullshit from Drudge & co., that “global warming” was “re-branded” to “global climate change.” The core premise remains the same, however: on a timescale of decades and centuries (not necessarily individual years, and certainly not individual weather events), average global temperatures are increasing, in significant part due to human activity.
P.S. A caveat: Al Gore is really a poor spokesman for the rational, scientifically based viewpoint on this issue, because he has tended to overemphasize individual weather events like Katrina — i.e., making the same weather vs. climate mistake that you skeptics constantly make in reverse. So if you want to argue that Al Gore has said stupid things, I’ll agree with you. But if your position is that the AGW movement has fundamentally shifted from a belief that “everything will constantly get warmer” — everything, everywhere, on a timescale of years and months and weeks and days and individual weather events — to a wishy-woshy, indistinct belief in “climate change,” you’re wrong on both ends of the equation. The basic premise, as I said, remains precisely the same; the concept has just been re-labeled so as not to confuse five-year-olds like Matt Drudge.
No, no, “global climate change” is on the way out too. It’s the new up-and-comer that replaces it, something like climate “volatility”, but that’s not catchy enough. I’ve seen it a few times but not enough that it stuck other than as a new change.
And I’m not confusing climate and weather. I think that’s what the climate whatever folks are doing, and see the changing neomenclature as a sign of that. I bellieve that the anthropogenic component is not significant, and that our best hope of keeping six billion folks alive, and improving their situation, is technology and economic growth, and that drastic measures should be considered carefully. I also believe that the fuss over “green house gasses” is an excuse to continue bashing the US over air pollution; we’ve made such great strides in controlling actual smog and particulate matter that the air-pollution apparatchiks (please ignore the negative connotation) have to switch focus to something we can’t see. Given the real problem of air pollution that remains elsewhere, this is a bit silly; there’s plenty left to be done improving air quality, but it’s mostly in places where your comfortable activist would rather not spend his time. Although China, despite its bad air, is quite pleasant, and I highly recommend at least visiting. /tourist board
But I digress. As to assholes, those folks you mention, Brendan, are among the ones I’d have taken out and shot, if I were king of the forest. Well, if I were king of the forest AND not committed to the principal that everyone has a right to act like a douchebag, and other small-l libertarian philosophical ideals.
“everyone has a right to act like a douchebag”
That should really be in the Bill of Rights, explicitly. 🙂
“But I digress. As to assholes, those folks you mention, Brendan, are among the ones I’d have taken out and shot, if I were king of the forest. Well, if I were king of the forest AND not committed to the principal that everyone has a right to act like a douchebag, and other small-l libertarian philosophical ideals.”
So you wouldn’t shoot them? Sounds like you are just another wishy-washy liberal who is soft on crime!
No, not for being assholes. It’s not that I wouldn’t want to, but I take it as a given that some folks think I’m an asshole, and I’d rather that wasn’t a capital offense.
Now, if somebody wants to beat the stuffing out of ol’ Fred and his minions, I’d be inclined to sympathize. And while I don’t hate Biden, I do think think he could use a swift kick in the balls every couple of months.
But that would be wrong. Unless ol’ Joe has a fetish for that kind of thing. That would be wrong, too, but in a different way, and he’s welcome to indulge in it as long as I don’t have to read about it.
Heh, sorry Chris, i was just joking around, i forgot the 😉 at the end
And here I figured suggesting Biden receive a bi-monthly kick in the balls for no particular reason other than being Joe Biden would work for the ;-).
Past warming shows gaps in climate knowledge
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-41050320090715
Explain to me what you think that means, because I don’t think it means what you think it means.
It means that all of you claiming that we understand climate, global warming and their causes are wrong.
Please note, I have never claimed that the climate is not changing…the climate is constantly changing. I have merely stated two things:
A) We don’t understand the climate.
B) Man’s effect on the climate pales next to the influences of the sun and natural forces.
It means that all of you claiming that we understand climate, global warming and their causes are wrong.
I’ll take Tilting at Strawmen for $300, Alex…
Allow me to adjust gahrie’s points to something approaching the scientific consensus on global warming:
A) We don’t completely understand climate
A.1) We do have variable–from minimal to fairly extensive–knowledge concerning many components of climate
A.2) We are learning more about these components daily
B) Humanity’s effect on the individual components of climate can range from zero to rather substantial
B.1) The full effect of humanity’s acitivities on the complex climate system are yet to be determined, but the effect is certainly not zero and is potentially large
B.2) The current data indicate that anthropogenic activity is statistically likely to be driving current changes in climate, which may result in outcomes that would generally be considered undersirable if one wishes to maintain the present organization of our civilization
I’ll also add:
C) The uncertainty of our climate modeling capabilities is certainly an important caveat and will need constant re-evaluation
D) The data indicate a strong possibility of positive feedback cycles that could accelerate climate changes
Given all of the above, D in particular, many feel that it is more prudent to take action now regarding mitigation strategies rather than wait for greater statistical confidence regarding anthropogenic effects.
Of course, everyone likely has their own individual tipping-point for the acceptance of near-term, X cost actions to prevent long-term consequences of Y probability and Z magnitude. YMMV.
I try to keep up with much of the relevant literature (though it is decidedly out of my field), but I am not fully convinced, for example, that we will necessarily reach any of the “doomsday” scenarios. However, the general trend in the literature is of greater confidence in anthropogenic effects that may result in–what I would consider–negative consequences. My valuation of Y & Z are dependent solelysufficiently large that I am willing to spend a fair amount for X, particularly given the real and potential ancillary benefits of cleaner technologies (i.e., reduce pollution, prevent further ocean acidification, etc.).
My question to those that deny anthropogenic climate change: what are your considerations regarding X, Y & Z? That is, what data do you need to see to reach your tipping-point?
“That is, what data do you need to see to reach your tipping-point?”
Unfortunately many of the climate-change denyers are of the type to ignore data that does not fit with their pre-defined set of acceptable outcomes. Many of them will ascribe the data to some vast global liberal conspiracy rather than consider the consequences and validity of the data. gahrie has allready demonstrated that he is one of those people by decrying global climate change as a shame perpetrated by the left wing and in particular Al Gore for some nefarious unspecified reasons.
“gahrie has allready demonstrated that he is one of those people by decrying global climate change as a shame perpetrated by the left wing and in particular Al Gore for some nefarious unspecified reasons.”
???? I have been quite clear on what the reasons are. For the radical left it is an attempt to control our nation’s (and the world’s) economy and to destroy capitalism and free markets. Al Gore is simply in it for money and power.
“That is, what data do you need to see to reach your tipping-point?”
Well, to begin with, I would like to see the proper placement of weather stations and consistency in the use of these weather stations.
Next I like to see a computer model that accurately predicts the past climate when historical numbers are entered into it.
Lastly I’d like to see an explanation of past climate shifts, (how they were caused and how they were “solved’) and why the threatened future ones are any different.
I believe that climate shifts are a naturally occuring phenomena, and are self correcting. The Earth is constantly changing, and constantly seeking equilibrium.
Now to turn the argument:
What would convince you that man’s effect on the climate is negligible?
“For the radical left it is an attempt to control our nation’s (and the world’s) economy and to destroy capitalism and free markets. Al Gore is simply in it for money and power.”
Congratulations on confirming yourself as a whackjob.
“I believe that climate shifts are a naturally occuring phenomena, and are self correcting. The Earth is constantly changing, and constantly seeking equilibrium. ”
Guess what, no one disputes this. You might as well be saying “I believe the Earth is round”. What you appear to be ignoring is that the data shows change IN ADDITION TO these natural variations. Not that I am surprised you are completely ignorant of what the actual problem is, just pointing it out for everyones benefit.
“Guess what, no one disputes this. You might as well be saying “I believe the Earth is round”. What you appear to be ignoring is that the data shows change IN ADDITION TO these natural variations. Not that I am surprised you are completely ignorant of what the actual problem is, just pointing it out for everyones benefit.”
1) What data? The failed climate models? The misplaced weather stations?
2) How do you know the changes are additional to natural variations? We don’t know what the natural variations are.
3) I know what the problem is supposed to be, I’m just not willing to destroy the US economy and standard of living based on unproven assertions.
4) Do you deny that Gore stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon trading and other “green” industries if the Democrats pass their bill?
5) Why do you never answer my questions as I attempt to answer yours?
Because you never actually do answer mine, and your questions are red herrings from the real issue and based on faulty and flawed premises. You believe there is a liberal conspiracy to turn us all into hippy communists, how do you expect anyone to even BEGIN to take you seriously?
What data? The failed climate models? The misplaced weather stations?
What are you babbling about? What failed climate models? What misplaced weather stations? And are you positing that if science makes one mistake, all of its assertions are suspect? You realize that’s an invalid argument, correct?
2) How do you know the changes are additional to natural variations? We don’t know what the natural variations are.
Nobody knows for sure that they are, but that’s what the available evidence points to. And we do know what the natural variations are:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
That’s not to imply we don’t have more to learn, but we have a good general idea about what the natural variations in the climate were like.
What your link shows is not that we suddenly have to rethink what we know about climate change, it shows what is obvious: warming can be caused by other factors. People commonly die from old age. Having a person die from a bullet to the head does not suddenly mean we need to rethink whether all of those other people really died from old age. The same effect can happen from multiple causes.
3) I know what the problem is supposed to be, I’m just not willing to destroy the US economy and standard of living based on unproven assertions.
What gives you the impression the US economy will be destroyed by efforts to curb climate change?
As far as unproven assertions, of course they are unproven, they are science! It seems you are unfamiliar with science. The only thing that can be proven is math. Everything else, including gravity, is a model.
4) Do you deny that Gore stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars in carbon trading and other “green” industries if the Democrats pass their bill?
I don’t know what Gore stands to make or not make, but that doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not he is correct. He either makes a reasonable argument or he doesn’t. And I think he does, although with some flair for the dramatic, to be sure.
“What are you babbling about? What failed climate models? What misplaced weather stations? ”
There is not a climate model out there that you can plug historical data into, and it will accurately reflect historical climate. There is tons of data available on how many (perhaps a majority) of the weather stations the at are used to collect climate data are misplaced…ie on roofs in the middle of a city, next to air conditioner vents and near large patches of asphalt. These will all produce artifically high temperature. There is also some controversy about which stations are included in various studies. I am not only asserting that the science this is based is is questionable, but that the basic data used is false also.
Now to turn the argument:
What would convince you that man’s effect on the climate is negligible?
gahrie, I’m perfectly happy to answer this hypothetical (and would count myself a piss-poor scientist if I couldn’t answer it).
I would need to see a shift in the relevant incoming data of a magnitude that indicates no warming trend and reliably suggests previous data, upon which current predictions have been made, are sufficiently flawed to warrant its discount.
No climatologist would assert that any particular set of data from which climate trends are drawn is without criticism. However, there are at present so many parallel lines of evidence that trend in the same direction, each with different and overlapping strength-and-weakness profiles that mitigate some of the concerns about the flaws in most any set: I personally find this compelling.
In response to your list: assuming the incoming data regarding anthropogenic climate change doesn’t substantially shift against the current consensus, I personally would not be willing to wait for us to work out all the kinks before acting. Given D) in my post @ 16, I think the precautionary principle places calls for more than token efforts in the near-term, which is why I support some of the current efforts.
In some ways, I think the analogy to an impending asteroid impact is illustrative without some of the weighty political bullshit that mires GW: An asteroid of comparable size to that of the KT extinction is detected. With current flawed technology, it is estimated that the asteroid has X% chance of striking the earth in Y years, and to produce a sufficient intervention (i.e., a nuclear rocket with Bruce Willis on board) with Z% chance of successfully preventing impact will cost Q billions of dollars (a price that may dramatically increase as Y decreases). Mess around with those variables and everyone will come up with different short- and long-term risks that are worth taking. Prudence requires some balance of continually refining X & Z before Y & Q run out…
I am not only asserting that the science this is based is is questionable, but that the basic data used is false also.
gahrie, you’re not a climatologist, right? Every climate paper I’ve read has discussed the relevant caveats of the data sets used and has offered some test of external validity, often trying to correct for the issues. What convinces you that the vast majority of climatologists don’t know they’re using “false” data and “questionable” methods; and/or that you know better than they do?
“What convinces you that the vast majority of climatologists don’t know they’re using “false” data and “questionable” methods; and/or that you know better than they do?”
Frankly, I don’t know. However I know I personally would never rely on a model that has been tested by entering historical data and which doesn’t accurately reflect historical outcomes. None of the climate models can predict historical climate based on historical data.
As far as the data, I’m sure most of them expect the government’s weather stations to provide them with accurate data. The sad truth is that this isn’t so. I have seen dozens of pictures of government weather stations sited next to parking lots, air conditioner vents, on top of asphalt roofs and similar heat sources. The government has also changed which stations are included over the years, also skewing the data.
As far as your scenario is concerned, in that case I would still not support a solution that took billions out of our economy, made the price of almost everything more expensive, gave the money in the form of meteor credits to the politically connected, and had very little to do with actually building the rocket.
There is not a climate model out there that you can plug historical data into, and it will accurately reflect historical climate.
Huh? Link me to where you are reading this tripe, because I think you are repeating stuff you’ve read on the internet and don’t understand it yourself.
That goes for the whole “misplaced” weather station thing as well. It makes absolutely no sense.
Also, the irony that I was responding point by point to a post where you complained that someone did not answer all of your questions and you basically ignored the entire thing was not lost on me.
Misplaced weather stations:
“”89 percent of the stations–nearly 9 of every 10–fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements.”
“With only 11% of surveyed stations being of acceptable quality, the raw temperature data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy decisions.””
http://www.maccompanion.com/macc/archives/July2009/Greenware/Surfacetemp.htm
Faulty climate models:
“Ironically, model worthiness and accuracy can be quickly assessed by simply plugging in yesterday’s numbers and seeing if the model actually yields results that are aligned with the known history. Yet to date, climate models have failed miserably. Though there is hope for further improvement, there is no current climate model that can, when applied to the documented past, accurately re-forecast the known historical record, much less portend what could be happening to the weather next week, least wise the next century. Climate modeling has yet to rise to a level of sophistication that allows us to accurately predict the future.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/its_the_climate_warming_models.html
As far as the data, I’m sure most of them expect the government’s weather stations to provide them with accurate data. The sad truth is that this isn’t so.
Honestly, I think it’s far more likely that scientists using the data produced by weather stations know their limitations. In fact, these objections have been around for a long time and are generally corrected for.
I know I personally would never rely on a model that has been tested by entering historical data and which doesn’t accurately reflect historical outcomes. None of the climate models can predict historical climate based on historical data.
As stated previously, climate models are necessarily imperfect. However, like all information technologies, they show continued improvements with greater computer power and increasing data. Climate models were able to acceptably reproduce the previous 100+ years (within statistical error) back in the 2001 IPCC report, and greater fidelity over longer ranges of time are continually being acheived. Models are an approximation to the real world, which have been shown to be reasonable approximations over a wide range of conditions, according the consensus of climate scientists. Data-model mismatches are taken seriously, leading to a re-evaluation of both to continue improvements. Results are more robust when multiple models, from different organizations around the world, using different data sets, are found to agree on predictions.
Tangent: It’s a sad irony, I think, that those most likely to reject the current science (often justifying such a stance with claims of inadequacy) tend to be those most resistant to improving the funding situations for the very research organizations they criticize. It’s a hell of a Catch-22.
Too often, I think those that reject current scientific knowledge (usually claims by non-scientists, against practically every field) fall into the “vaporware” trap: the theoretical framework is imperfect in such-and-such ways, therefore it is of no value. This asserts a false dichotomy that is gratifyingly simple, if intellectually bankrupt, that inhibits further progress.
As far as your scenario is concerned, in that case I would still not support a solution that took billions out of our economy, made the price of almost everything more expensive, gave the money in the form of meteor credits to the politically connected, and had very little to do with actually building the rocket.
Ignoring that you intentionally politicized a thought experiment that was specifically meant to avoid the present political mudflinging…Taking your comments in this thread as a whole, including this one above, it’s probably a reasonable assumption that you value near-term economic concerns over long-term potential consequences more than I do. That’s fine–there is no “right answer” to personal preferences, and I am willing to admit that we may never line up particularly well on questions of this nature.
I have my own nuanced opinions on the veracity of IPCC claims (it is in my nature and training to defer to the consensus of trained professionals and follow the trends of the field, but hard questons should always be continually asked) as well as the proposed and enacted government-based climate policies (too many problems with spinal rigidity, jingoism and expedience in our earmarkophilic officials, which can lead to vague and rudderless half-solutions of unnecessary expense). However, I really have little patience for commonly irrational nature of climate discussions. Rational skepticism is a healthy state of mind: one should always seek out properly-informed contrarian points of view in order to continually evaluate personal stances. It’s pseudoscientific denialism, however, when one preferentially seeks opinions that conform to preconceived beliefs. This happens all the time on both sides of this particular debate, and it drives me up the wall.
I am not accusing gahrie of denialism, by the way. (In fact, I think David discredits himself more than gahrie with some of his comments of this vein.) All I hope for is that everyone will honestly ask themselves what possible and reasonably acheivable new information over the next years/decades will substantially shift their current position. I can comfortably and confidently assert that I’m likely to follow the consensus statistical confidence of climate scientists, whether it increases or decreases. How about you?
” (In fact, I think David discredits himself more than gahrie with some of his comments of this vein.) ”
Really? You think he has more credit when he denies man has any impact on global climate change and that the whole thing is a vast liberal conspiracy aimed at destroying capitalism and enriching Al Gore? I’m curious how I have done more to discredit myself than he has done, really.
Misplaced weather stations:
I’d like you to read some counterpoint to that, and come back and tell me what you think:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.geo.meteorology/msg/a4ee2c6a2b684fdd?pli=1
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/temptracker/page2.html
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/
Search for Watts on that last one, there is a 4 part series on Watts’s analysis.
Seriously, peruse, digest it, and come back and give me an honest assessment of what you think after being presented with evidence to the contrary.
Secondarily, I wonder if you had considered that the overarching claim isn’t that warming will occur only in the United States. What about the rest of the planet?
Faulty climate models:
I think you need to observe the fact that while that article talks in vague terms about how climate models are difficult to make accurate (that’s true) there is no actual analysis of the models themselves, so I don’t really see how one can draw any sort of conclusion about the validity of the models from that article.
I really wish that people that consider themselves skeptics would observe that to truly be a skeptic you must be skeptical of everything, even skepticism. There’s a pattern here, amateur skeptics make assertions that are then summarily smacked down by anyone knowing the first thing about science. It happens time and time again. Do this for me, next time you come across information like this, try and find out what the scientific community thinks about the analysis. Especially on a topic as hot (no pun intended) as this, there are many people who have gotten so sick of uninformed criticism that they’ve taken up the cause of refuting it all. So you can often find good articles on specific criticisms (like your first one).
In your second link, there’s not really much in the way of specific criticism, so you really can’t get informed response, sorry.
My point–if too subtle–was that claims of “a vast liberal conspiracy aimed at destroying capitalism and enriching Al Gore” (however accurate that represents gahrie’s comments and actual opinions) should be sufficiently self-discrediting that there is no need for hyperbole, mischaracterization and/or ad hominem. If his, or anyone’s, claims do have any (perceived, potential) merit, it’s more appropriate to address them with quality counter-claims than fallaciously dismiss them.
The point of my aside is that sloppy thinking leads to tractionless arguments that typically degenerate into uncivil pissing matches; on a larger scale, I believe, this leads to insitutionalized obdurateness that can constrain societal progress and cause governmental paralysis. I generally detest this type of argumentation, however natural it may be, and I think it’s important to call others on it even if they’re ostensibly “on my side” in a debate.
Perhaps that would be true scientizzle if it were a gross exageration of what he was saying, but its not, as can be demonstrated by this very thread. I brought it brings along with it a gigantic credibility problem when trying to take any of gahrie’s statements seriously. If someone tells you that the Earth is flat and people will fall of the edge if they sail too far, and then proceed to argue with you about, say, plate tectonics, are you really going to take them seriously? They have demonstrated that they are willing to ignore overwhelming evidence that contradicts there position and base their arguments on ideas put forth by those who also ignore that same evidence and claim (using strawmen like you mention above) that if something about the model isn’t 100% understood the model is completely useless.
Why shouldn’t I call gahrie on his admitted extreme bias on this issue? You can try and argue with him all you want, but you might as well argue with Tom Cruise about the benefits of psychiatry. He’s allready taken a position that says whatever evidence you provide is wrong. It’s not too dissimilar to trying to prove the existence of God to an atheist using the Bible. They allready have dissallowed the evidence you are goign to use as being of any valid use.
I have attempted on numerous occasion to engage gahrie in civil debate and it failed in every attempt, so I made the very conscious decision to stop trying after awhile because it will never lead anywhere. In order for discourse to be worth the effort you have to have participants who are open to considering the opposing side. When someone has demonstrated ad nauseum that they aren’t willing to do that you think its wrong to call them on it? If my pointing out the fact that gahrie believes in a vast liberal conspiracy about global climate change is somehow more discrediting of me than it is of him, I guess I have to accept that your standards are just different than most peoples on what is or isn’t reasonable.
If my pointing out the fact that gahrie believes in a vast liberal conspiracy about global climate change is somehow more discrediting of me than it is of him, I guess I have to accept that your standards are just different than most peoples on what is or isn’t reasonable.
First, I think it’s entirely likely that my standards are, in fact, different. I’m okay with this, and hold the (perhaps wildly flawed) notion that the world would be a better place with standards closer to my own and I should lead by example.
Secondly, your interpretation of my comments are seemingly divorced from their intended meaning.
David discredits himself more than gahrie with some of his comments means: some of David’s comments ascribe to gahrie a viewpoint that may in fact be a (small or large) mischaracterization of gahrie’s claims; while I may strongly disgree with gahrie’s claims as I interpret them, David mischaracterizing gahrie’s position is unlikely to affect my opinion of gahrie’s claims and reflects poorly on David as the constructor of his own straw men.
Shorter Scientizzle: gahrie may be crazy, but David screaming “gahrie’s crazy” doesn’t make either look good
What I didn’t mean was that I find any sort of equivalence in your different underlying premises. I think David & I are in far greater agreement on the issue in question than gahrie & I. I tend to think in a Bayesian manner; thus, a similarly badly-formed argument would be relatively more damaging to my perception of the credibility of David’s side versus gahrie’s.
You two don’t get along (online at least). I get it. By all means, call each other whatever you like and argue the way you please. I’m just registering my distaste for this mode of discourse, which I’ve watched in pieces over the past few months…This just happens to be the only thread in which I’ve participated thus far @ Bloy.com version 2.0 3.0 4.0(?) .
I could understand your point if I were throwing up strawmen Scientizzle, but sadly I’m not.
“For the radical left it is an attempt to control our nation’s (and the world’s) economy and to destroy capitalism and free markets. Al Gore is simply in it for money and power.”
Its in this very thread. It’s what he believes. He has also said in this very thread he believes that man has NO affect on global climate change. He has mentioned before (i’ll try and find the comment) that the scientists involved are also part of this conspiracy.
So my pointing out that he’s crazy somehow reflects badly on me because…? Sorry I fail to understand how thats logical if he IS in fact exhibiting behavior that validates my claim.
It would be entirely different if he had said: “I am skeptical that humans are involved in global warming, and I think there are some people who are using it to take advantage of people”. If I then called him a crazy nutjob who ignored science and believed in a vast conspiracy, then you would absolutely be justified in saying that I was discrediting myself. But pointing out what he himself has proudly admitted to? That discredits ME? I mean I can understand if criticizing gahries frankly absurd beliefs caused me to be discredited by someone who shares them, that makes sense, but to someone who I would think could plainly see just how far out in left field they are?
In any case, i’ll conclude by pointing out, its not a strawman to point out someones belief in something if they proudly admit to believing it.
David, regarding “For the radical left it is an attempt to control our nation’s (and the world’s) economy and to destroy capitalism and free markets. Al Gore is simply in it for money and power”…I think this statement is one of those self-discrediting claims I alluded to.
I think, though, turning that into “You believe there is a liberal conspiracy to turn us all into hippy communists” does misinterpret the intended meaning (hardcore anarcho-collectivists may or may not buy the science of global warming, but see an opportunity to force changes in their favored direction through policies designed to undercut the status quo by playing on the fears of global warming).
You have also stated in this thread:
* “[gahrie will] ignore data that does not fit with [his] pre-defined set of acceptable outcomes”
* “[gahrie has] allready taken a position that says whatever evidence [Scientizzle will] provide is wrong”
* “[gahrie is] completely ignorant of what the actual problem is”
These may all, in fact, be true. I have not come to these conclusions myself, though I have no doubt that I’m unfamiliar with all of gahrie’s statements on this topic. If these are not true, however, then you have made comments that mischaracterize his position. I welcome any supporting evidence for these claims.
Your statement that “He has also said in this very thread he believes that man has NO affect on global climate change” is not actually what was said in #15.
So my pointing out that he’s crazy somehow reflects badly on me because…?
Because it’s entirely plausible that gahrie is not actually crazy–that you just strongly disagree with each other–and you do a dis-service to the both of you to make such claims.
There is a difference between disagreeing with someone, and their view being so far beyond reasonable that its not plain crazy (not in the clinical sense mind you). If gahrie supports the NRA or supports abortion, those are things I disagree with but see as reasonable. Believing that global climate change is a vast left wing conspiracy whose goal is to utterly destroy capitalism? That is pretty crazy. Right up there with “we didn’t actually go to the moon”. Is there a remote chance he’s right? I suppose in the same sense there’s a remote chance that unicorns really do exist.
And yes, you are correct some of my views on gahrie stem from earlier “discussions” with him in other threads based on his previous behavior which is entirely consistent with his denial of facts he finds inconvenient to his stated and demonstrated worldview, as well as statements that are just beyond belief. He has also stated that people who don’t have adequate medical care are that way by choice. Somewhat less crazy than a vast conspiracy of global warming, but still demonstrative of a easily seen partisan bias and inability to accept facts which are counter to what he wishes to believe.
This is not a case of finding someone who i just don’t get along with and disagree with on politics. There are plenty of people like that out there i’m sure, and a vast majority of them I would not characterize as crazy. gahrie is however in that class of individuals, who through their actions, has demonstrated the qualities i ascribed to him.
You are of course free to continue to try and have a discussion with him, I just figured I would point out that he’s behavior has led myself (and others, Becky has said it too if your curious for a second opinion) to believe he has no interest in being open to new information. He’s picked his views and they have been etched in stone, immuteable to fact and science alike. I stand by what I said, that based on his beliefs he’s crazy (not in the clinical sense), partisan, and close-minded. Take from that what you will I guess.
“He has also stated that people who don’t have adequate medical care are that way by choice. Somewhat less crazy than a vast conspiracy of global warming, but still demonstrative of a easily seen partisan bias and inability to accept facts which are counter to what he wishes to believe.”
In response, see:
“In a new study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill, commissioned by the Employment Policies Institute, it was determined that 43% of people counted in the overblown 47 million uninsured estimate actually have incomes of at least 250% of the poverty level (averaging about $65,000) and could afford to purchase private health coverage. They are not insured because they choose not to pay for insurance.”
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/07/15/2009-07-15_we_cant_cure_health_care_if_we_misdiagnose_the_disease.html?print=1&page=all
“I would point out that he’s behavior has led myself (and others, Becky has said it too if your curious for a second opinion) to believe he has no interest in being open to new information. He’s picked his views and they have been etched in stone, immuteable to fact and science alike.”
If that were true, I wouldn’t engage in dialogs with you. Just for the record, when have you ever shown yourself to be open to new information? I have been very careful not to engage in ad hominen attack, unfortunately this is not true of you and others.