Aliens cause global warming

[Pangloss]

I do agree that the Wikipedia is not an academic source, but when the entire purpose of the page is to promote a specific concept, the page is record-locked and about as peer-reviewed as any academic source, then it is, at least for our purposes here, perfectly citable. That page is the central rallying point for everyone who promotes that cause, and they wouldn't let inaccurate data on that score last 13 picoseconds without somebody smacking the Revert button.

 

That having been said, you might have been best served by just answering his question. The source for that information is stated on the Wikipedia page as the IPCC report.

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

(Warning: PDF)

[iNow]

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade.

Thanks to Pangloss, we have an actual source to view. It’s rather suspicious that somebody so confident in their claims refuses to back them up with anything more than appeal to ridicule, despite repeated requests.

 

From the link shared kindly by Pangloss, we can see the context of the data, which is this:

 

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature9 (since 1850).

 

The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C].

 

The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

 

The total temperature increase from 1850–1899 to 2001–2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C].

 

 

 

The above summary references section 3.2 of the Physical Science Basis report, which details the following:

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

 

 

 

 

As you can see, the mean increase per decade must be viewed in context of 1) Dataset, 2) Land versus Ocean, and 3) Specific time frame. The above provides a much clearer view of the referenced trends, and allows the reader to put the numbers into context and consequently form their own impression of the trends.

 

One benefit of having this source data available to us is that it also allows one to view the trends in other ways... such as by hemisphere, or for the overall globe (as shown below).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future.

First, you have not defined “near future.” If you mean this week, then of course you are correct. However, presuming that the source provided by Pangloss (IPCC) is the source for your comment, it’s important to note that your own source directly contradicts your conclusion.

 

 

 

Let’s look now at the information shared in section 10.3 of the Physical Science Basis report, which (in terms of projected global mean temperature change for the 21^st century) states exactly the following:

 

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf

 

An expert assessment based on the combination of available constraints from observations (assessed in Chapter 9) and the strength of known feedbacks simulated in the models used to produce the climate change projections in this chapter indicates that the equilibrium global mean SAT warming for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), or ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, is likely to lie in the range 2°C to 4.5°C, with a most likely value of about 3°C.

 

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is very likely larger than 1.5°C. For fundamental physical reasons, as well as data limitations, values substantially higher than 4.5°C still cannot be excluded, but agreement with observations and proxy data is generally worse for those high values than for values in the 2°C to 4.5°C range.

 

 

You, watching all data as closely as you do, and, being aware of the finer details, likely noticed the key contingency in the above conclusion. It referred to a "doubling of atmospheric CO₂." Sure enough, this contingency was itself validated at several points in Chapter 10, with a complete list of references as to how this approach is supported. I do advise you check it out for yourself, especially if you are concerned about the validity of such an approach, just as you should verify the validity of all data and claims before coming to a conclusion.

 

 

 

Of special note, that same chapter also shares the following:

About half of the early 21st-century warming is committed in the sense that it would occur even if atmospheric concentrations were held fixed at year 2000 values.

Globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation are projected to increase.

Intensity of precipitation events is projected to increase,

There is a tendency for drying of the mid-continental areas during summer, indicating a greater risk of droughts in those regions.

As the climate warms, snow cover and sea ice extent decrease; glaciers and ice caps lose mass owing to a dominance of summer melting over winter precipitation increases. This contributes to sea level rise as documented for the previous generation of models in the TAR.

Sea level is projected to rise between the present (1980– 1999) and the end of this century (2090–2099) under the SRES B1 scenario by 0.18 to 0.38 m, B2 by 0.20 to 0.43 m, A1B by 0.21 to 0.48 m, A1T by 0.20 to 0.45 m, A2 by 0.23 to 0.51 m, and A1FI by 0.26 to 0.59 m.

 

 

There were also multiple pages describing increased frequency of intense storms, monsoons, cyclones, and other weather activity that don’t exactly lend themselves well to the increased survival of humans and their habitats, but... uhhh... yeah… I can see where you might think people who encourage change now are over reacting.

 

 

 

 

We have time to implement sensible measures - not idiotic measures that will drastically reduce the standard of living of all people and drive the poorest into starvation.

You have not defined “sensible measures,” nor have you supported your point that these will be sufficient to mitigate the issues described. You then AGAIN appeal to ridicule, and offer two distinct strawman arguments. Human contributions to atmospheric CO₂ can be curbed with little to no impact on standard or living, and can, in fact, actually improve it for many. There is also no reason to presume that curbing human contributions to atmospheric CO₂ will “drive the poorest into starvation.” I outlined much of my support for this conclusion recently here in another thread.

 

If you disagree with my challenge, and you have support for your assertions regarding the economy and starvation (IOW, they're not just strawmen), please share them here (preferably, without making me request citations from you). If you don’t, or you are unable, then your strawmen above should be thoroughly ignored and considered completely invalid.

 

 

 

So, you see what happens when a source is shared? Your entire approach and set of conclusions get debunked. I can see why you didn’t want to share it openly when prompted.

 

 

Now… some of your other posts had serious logical fallacies, and I am going to highlight a few of those here. My point regarding the fault in your conclusions has already been demonstrated above. The below is my response to your attempts to belittle me and ridicule me for requesting you provide evidence of your claims… both of which are explicitly against this forum’s rules.

 

 

 

 

In spite of some naive people's total faith in computer models, no-one [knows how the warming will go over the next 30 years]. It may increase or not.

Besides your ad hominem, this is false (as demonstrated above).

 

 

 

However, an increase by 3 Celsius is still seriously unlikely in the near future, meaning anything less than 100 years.

Your own source contradicts this claim. If the IPCC was not your source, then you should offer your source, as the information which I shared from the IPCC clearly and resolutely debunks your statement.

 

 

 

If we can develop new technologies and implement them globally in the next 50 years, the 3 Celsius rise will simply not happen.

To make a claim as profound as this, you must define new technologies, and forecast their impact on climate, as well as implementation timelines and potential obstacles. If you’ve done this, please share your results. If not, then you’re simply making this up. Unsupported arguments will not convince anyone of reasonable intelligence. Please show the readers of this forum enough respect to support your points with evidence.

 

 

 

 

The thing is that he offended the delicate sensibilities of those people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive.

This is both ad hominem and a strawman. The rest of this particular post was more of the same.

 

 

 

I concede that this is a long post. However, Lance, if you’re so sure about your conclusions, you need to support them. Your unfounded opinion means nothing, especially when it is completely unfounded, inaccurate, and wrong, all three descriptors which I have amply demonstrated and supported above.

[Pangloss]

The thing is that he offended the delicate sensibilities of those people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive.

 

That's not a straw man, it's an observation and statement of opinion. It may be off subject, but if it's not intended to refute anything specific, but just expand on his point of view, then not only is it valid, it's WELCOME. We INVITE that sort of thing here, iNow.

 

This is what I mean by the SFN Talking Points Memo and ideological ostracization on this board. This right here.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

What an overreaction!

 

We got into an argument over my statement that warming over the past 30 years was 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade. I posted two separate references to support that, and, in fact, as you now realise, I was correct. My original statement was not in the least bit controversial - it is merely the accepted scientific reality.

 

Let's leave it at that, huh?

[iNow]

What an overreaction!

Gee... would you look at that... another appeal to ridicule.

 

 

My original statement was not in the least bit controversial - it is merely the accepted scientific reality.

Actually, if you read my post above, you will notice exactly where I disagreed with you, and precisely where your assumptions were mistaken.

 

 

Let's leave it at that, huh?

If you're unable to support your position, and you recognize that I won't put up with bullshit claims, then... yeah, I can see how you'd want to "leave it at that." Fair enough.

 

 

 

Walk the walk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not a straw man, it's an observation and statement of opinion.

Perhaps that observation can be supported with an actual example then?

 

 

Exactly who, when, and where is the evidence of "people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive," and that what Lomborg said "offended the delicate sensibilities" of them?

 

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Pangloss. You and I have had our disagreements, but I think we've come quite a long way into forming a mature relationship with one another. Please don't go too much farther down the above path, because I WILL strongly support my position, and I will not hold my punches. If we must openly disagree, let's just do so regarding our approaches to the political polarization in US politics and it's impact on humanity, not anthropegenic global climate change and the nonsense people say to argue against it and changes we must make as a culture to mitigate the risk it imposes. I ask this of you in the spirit of future friendship.

 

 

 

 

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/strawmanarguments.html

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

[Pangloss]

Then why don't you apply the same reasoning to both sides, iNow? Why do you only hold the opposition to that standard?

 

Would you like me to give you an example of how you've failed to hold your side to your standard within this very thread?

[swansont]

We got into an argument over my statement that warming over the past 30 years was 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade. I posted two separate references to support that, and, in fact, as you now realise, I was correct. My original statement was not in the least bit controversial - it is merely the accepted scientific reality.

 

I can't help but note that you've omitted the "An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future." claim, which was the focus of iNow's argument. The issue was not so much the past increase, but the extrapolation and conclusion you reached from it. Linear extrapolation of a nonlinear function has limited validity.

[SkepticLance]

To Swansont

 

If you look at the warming over the last 30 years, on any graph produced by a reputable authority, you will see a warming that bounces up and down. However, a straight line is not a bad fit for this warming, if we ignore the minor fluctuations up and down. Of course, if you try a longer time scale, extending further into the past, the straight line no longer fits.

 

If you assume that the higher part of the warming range (ie. 0.2 C per decade) is correct, then it will take 150 years for a 3 Celsius increase in average temperature on Earth.

 

Of course, the warming may not stay anything like linear. It may accelerate, or it may decelerate. You will, no doubt, argue that it will accelerate. However, when you do that, you are gazing into a crystal ball, or a computer model, which is also unreliable. The simple truth is, we do not know.

 

In any case, I believe that I am correct in saying that a 3 Celsius increase is not likely in the near future, assuming near future means less than 100 years.

 

Swansont,

I am not a global warming denier. Just a sceptic of those who make extravagent claims. I accept the world is warming, and that over the past 30 years, the main agent for that warming is human activity. I also accept that a need exists for remedial action.

 

However, I do not accept that we should be precipitated into panic action. Action needs to be well thought out, well tested, and well managed. Currently the biggest problem is that we lack acceptable alternatives for a lot of the carbon releasing activities we do.

 

For example : If someone comes to me and tells me I have to give up my car, and ride a bicycle everywhere, that guy is likely to end up with a thick lip. I do not, and very few others do, agree that a bicycle is an acceptable alternative to a car.

 

Yet those alternatives are under development. Let's put resources into developing the alternatives, and then implement them. Let's NOT allow anyone into panicking us into ill considered actions that we will regret later.

[iNow]

In any case, I believe that I am correct in saying that a 3 Celsius increase is not likely in the near future, assuming near future means less than 100 years.

 

I supported, with evidence, my contention that your claim here is mistaken. You have offered no evidence in support of your claim. Can you?

[Pangloss]

iNow, what do you believe that it means if the answer to your question is "no"?

[swansont]

To Swansont

 

If you look at the warming over the last 30 years, on any graph produced by a reputable authority, you will see a warming that bounces up and down. However, a straight line is not a bad fit for this warming, if we ignore the minor fluctuations up and down. Of course, if you try a longer time scale, extending further into the past, the straight line no longer fits.

 

If you assume that the higher part of the warming range (ie. 0.2 C per decade) is correct, then it will take 150 years for a 3 Celsius increase in average temperature on Earth.

 

Of course, the warming may not stay anything like linear. It may accelerate, or it may decelerate. You will, no doubt, argue that it will accelerate. However, when you do that, you are gazing into a crystal ball, or a computer model, which is also unreliable. The simple truth is, we do not know.

 

In any case, I believe that I am correct in saying that a 3 Celsius increase is not likely in the near future, assuming near future means less than 100 years.

 

No, you are not. By your own analysis, you correctly recognize that linear fits can be extremely limited in value (given a short enough data set, a linear fit always works), and yet you simultaneously decry others' extrapolations but claim your own is valid, based on zero scientific analysis. On what basis do you support the claim that the temperature increase will be linear?

 

 

Swansont,

I am not a global warming denier. Just a sceptic of those who make extravagent claims. I accept the world is warming, and that over the past 30 years, the main agent for that warming is human activity. I also accept that a need exists for remedial action.

 

However, I do not accept that we should be precipitated into panic action. Action needs to be well thought out, well tested, and well managed. Currently the biggest problem is that we lack acceptable alternatives for a lot of the carbon releasing activities we do.

 

For example : If someone comes to me and tells me I have to give up my car, and ride a bicycle everywhere, that guy is likely to end up with a thick lip. I do not, and very few others do, agree that a bicycle is an acceptable alternative to a car.

 

Yet those alternatives are under development. Let's put resources into developing the alternatives, and then implement them. Let's NOT allow anyone into panicking us into ill considered actions that we will regret later.

 

That's mostly political, being policy action. Note that I am not challenging you because I think you are denying global warming, I am challenging you because you are making invalid scientific conclusions. Poor science is poor science. And IMO policy shouldn't be based on poor science.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said "

 

"On what basis do you support the claim that the temperature increase will be linear?"

 

I don't believe I made that claim. I said that the warming over the past 30 years was essentially linear, and we do not know what the pattern will be in the future. I also said it appears that a rise of 3 Celsius in less than 100 years is unlikely. Not impossible. Just unlikely.

 

Depending on the way the warming goes in the future, the time to achieve a 3 Celsius temperature rise could be anything from 200 years (if warming is at 0.15 C per decade) to 50 years (if warming increases to 0.6 C per decade, which appears unlikely).

 

To suggest major warmings in the near future requires an assumption that the rate of warming will increase dramatically. It has not done so for 30 years, and a dramatic increase in the near future would be a major diversion from the historic pattern, making it seen unlikely.

 

Swansont also said

 

"Poor science is poor science. And IMO policy shouldn't be based on poor science."

 

Absolutely, I could not agree with you more. The problem is that you think that the most complex and unreliable computer models ever constructed represent good science. I do not. They are unreliable and fallible.

 

Good science includes recognising that which is uncertain. And I am pointing out the uncertainty of future warming predictions.

[Reaper]

Good science includes recognising that which is uncertain. And I am pointing out the uncertainty of future warming predictions.

 

Are you even aware of how small the uncertainty or the magin of error is in these climate models? I'll give you one guess....

[iNow]

Swansont also said

 

"Poor science is poor science. And IMO policy shouldn't be based on poor science."

 

Absolutely, I could not agree with you more. The problem is that you think that the most complex and unreliable computer models ever constructed represent good science. I do not. They are unreliable and fallible.

Lance - This particular argument of yours has already been debunked thoroughly in the thread below:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26669

 

 

...Specifically, here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=364670&postcount=148

 

 

...here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=367823&postcount=269

 

 

...here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=366547&postcount=210

 

 

...here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=367216&postcount=229

 

 

...here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=367274&postcount=232

 

 

...here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=367861&postcount=273

 

 

...here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=367994&postcount=282

 

 

...and...

 

 

Aw... hell. Just go read that thread again. You were wrong there, too.

[SkepticLance]

Lockheed said

 

"Are you even aware of how small the uncertainty or the magin of error is in these climate models?"

 

No, I am not. And neither are you.

 

The problem is that the major source of error comes not from what we know, but from what we do not. The climate models make a range of assumptions, which require that certain unknowns are considered not to matter.

 

For example : a warming Earth has a wide range of biological effects, primarily an increase in plant growth. How much will this feed-back into the system? No-one knows. In cold temperate and Arctic regions, which are exactly those regions that will experience the greatest warming, there will be an explosion of life with greater warmth. Yet this is not factored into climate models. It can't be, since we do not know how it will impact. But it will have a big, albeit unknown impact.

 

Ditto for the effects of changing cloud formations.

 

The last 30 years have been very stable in terms of non anthropogenic factors. This will not last. There will be large changes in solar activity as shown by sunspots. There will be volcanoes of unpredictable size. There will be changes due to human activity that have not yet been predicted.

 

Thus, the error factors are to a large degree unknown. Predictions based on computer models cannot be reliable.

[swansont]

The problem is that you think that the most complex and unreliable computer models ever constructed represent good science. I do not. They are unreliable and fallible.

 

I know people who work in nuclear and particle physics, so I'm not sure I accept the claim that these are the most complex computer models ever constructed. As for reliability, that's testable, is it not?

 

Hansen, et. al, made estimates in a 1988 and looked at how ell those estimated did in a 2006 paper http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2006/Hansen_etal_1.html

 

There's an analysis of it at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/

 

As Hansen points out, the 1988 paper used a climate sensitivity that has been refined in the intervening years, and still the predictions (scenario "B") match up pretty well. It's also pointed out that the elapsed time isn't long enough to narrow the uncertainty in the climate sensitivity.

 

Swansont said "

 

"On what basis do you support the claim that the temperature increase will be linear?"

 

I don't believe I made that claim. I said that the warming over the past 30 years was essentially linear, and we do not know what the pattern will be in the future. I also said it appears that a rise of 3 Celsius in less than 100 years is unlikely. Not impossible. Just unlikely.

 

 

But there's this:

 

If you assume that the higher part of the warming range (ie. 0.2 C per decade) is correct, then it will take 150 years for a 3 Celsius increase in average temperature on Earth.

 

 

Which seems like a linear projection to me.

[SkepticLance]

Swansont said "

 

"Which seems like a linear projection to me."

 

You are correct, but I did specify which assumption needed to be made in that case. I accept that there are no certainties in relation to future warming, and in fact that is a big part of my argument.

 

Future warming may be linear, positively or negatively exponential, or any variation.

 

My statement that warming in the near future is unlikely to be massive, is based entirely on the trend over the past 30 years. While it probably will not continue in a linear manner, it would be a major change to allow 3 Celsius warming in a short time. Long term trends normally do not do this. And the long term trend over the past 150 years is less than 0.2 C per decade.

 

On the testing of computer models. As I have pointed out before, looking at what they predict for the past 30 years is not much of a test. We had a very simple situation, with one driving parameter, and one result, which was close to linear. You could calculate the result on the back of an envelope, to within reasonably low error, if you were a climate scientist with good mathematical ability.

 

When the models looked at temperature change before 1976, at a time when other factors were strongly influential, they were not anywhere near as accurate.

[iNow]

My statement that warming in the near future is unlikely to be massive, is based entirely on the trend over the past 30 years. While it probably will not continue in a linear manner, it would be a major change to allow 3 Celsius warming in a short time. Long term trends normally do not do this. And the long term trend over the past 150 years is less than 0.2 C per decade.

 

Just a reminder. I already illustrated with supporting evidence back in post #52 how this issue is amply dealt with by Chapter 10 of the IPCC physical science basis report. To be perfectly honest, your "I just don't think that's likely" explanation doesn't hold water, nor does it warrant further attention. You are not supporting your contention with anything more than personal opinion, and that approach doesn't hold anywhere near as much weight as the work cited in the IPCC does.

 

You really need to support your contention or shut up about it. This is a science forum, and the opposite of what you say regarding warming during this century has already been presented. Your claims have been demostrated counter to multiple studies, and you simply respond using denialist tactics, trying to sew the seeds of doubt instead of supporting your own position (or proving the counter position mistaken).

 

Repeating yourself does not add any validity to your claims. Support them, or remain wrong.

[Pangloss]

You really need to support your contention or shut up about it.

 

I have a problem with this language, and I think it's high time this forum had an open discussion about this sort of thing. In fact if it were up to me I would close every single thread on every single subforum and nail it shut with a hyperlink to the thread where we're going to talk about this.

 

But I'm just going to point out what you said, in letters big enough that even people on your side cannot possibly miss it.

 

I also have a problem with this, for different reasons:

 

Repeating yourself does not add any validity to your claims. Support them, or remain wrong.

 

That is so wrong on so many levels I can't even begin to express it. But to try, in a nutshell, I will just say that it is not our purpose here to prove one side right and the other wrong, and you OF ALL PEOPLE should understand that.

 

And when a user fails to provide evidence that doesn't mean they're wrong, it means they've failed to provide evidence. If I came in here and said "gravity is real" and you said "prove it", and I couldn't, we would hardly begin floating in midair.

 

You just could not possibly be more wrong to say something like that, oh great preacher of liberal tolerance and humane decency and mutual respect. In every conceivable way.

[iNow]

I have a problem with this language, and I think it's high time this forum had an open discussion about this sort of thing.

Good for you. Open a new thread. If I've broken forum rules, then it's in your power to infract me. Please stop posting non-topic related issues.

 

 

And when a user fails to provide evidence that doesn't mean they're wrong, it means they've failed to provide evidence. If I came in here and said "gravity is real" and you said "prove it", and I couldn't, we would hardly begin floating in midair.

I suggest you have a significant misunderstanding of what has occurred in this thread, and for whatever reason you feel compelled to come to the aid of someone who misrepresents facts and who sews the seeds doubt using denialist tactics instead of providing support for their position. Your attack is on my style, not my facts or conclusions, both of which I find significantly more important in a scientific discourse.

 

 

Let me again clarify my position.

 

In previous posts, I expressed with both support and peer-reviewed citation how Lance's claims were wrong and how his attempts to down-play future impact of cross-modality predicted warming trends over the coming century are unsupported, and, in fact, false. I cited specific research, and also gave context for the claims made in that research, as well as openly shared the premises on which those conclusions were reached... Premises which themselves were supported.

 

 

Now... Here's my point.

 

Lance has simply said, "Nope, my opinion says that won't be the case." I have shown that he is wrong... not because he's failed to support his case with evidence... but because I personally offered evidence which is counter to his claims. He has only responded by placing suspicion on the entire process of modelling (as he has done in other threads), yet cannot show any faults in the models themselves.

 

Since this point was so consistently ignored, I repeated that he has not supported his assertions, and reminded him that these assertions have already been proven false above in this very thread. I suggested that repeating oneself adds no validity to one's claims, and advised that he stop making claims without support... especially since those claims had already been debunked earlier on.

 

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I welcome counter arguments and different approaches, but if those arguments and approaches are proven false, inaccurate, and invalid, then I fail to see the benefit of maintaining them as the base of one's position.

 

 

I ask you... Is this an adequate response to your great big bright red selection of text from one single sentence in one single post in an overall series and chain of posts I've made in this thread?

 

 

I am confident in the validity of the conclusions I've made here. If they're are not valid, then show them wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just could not possibly be more wrong to say something like that, oh great preacher of liberal tolerance and humane decency and mutual respect. In every conceivable way.

 

Way to lead by example there, Pangloss. Bang up job, mate.

[SkepticLance]

To Pangloss

 

Thank you for your support. I fully appreciate you are not supporting my argument, but just my right to free speech without personal attacks being levied against me. I applaud your priorities. The free speech issue is far more important.

 

Some people frequently forget the simple fact that these forum discussions actually do not matter terribly much. No Great Man - mover and shaker in the climate scene - is going to be reading these comments and acting on them. I never forget that contributing to these threads is a form of recreation - not something that really matters. For this reason, I find it a great shame when some contributors get so emotionally involved in these unimportant discussions that they start getting personal and insulting.

 

Fortunately, I do not permit small minded attacks to bother me on a personal level. I was advised many years ago, when still a teen ager, that it takes two people for an insult to be delivered. The insulter, and someone who is prepared to accept the insult. I have operated on the policy since then that I will not accept insults, and hence cannot be insulted.

 

I am quite happy to ignore them, and continue the debate with those people who are able and prepared to carry on the discussion amicably and with courtesy, whether they agree with me or not.

 

Thank you again for your support Pangloss. It is always uplifting to know that there are people who will stand up for our rights to free speech.

[iNow]

To Pangloss

 

Thank you for your support. I fully appreciate you are not supporting my argument, but just my right to free speech without personal attacks being levied against me. I applaud your priorities. The free speech issue is far more important.

 

Some people frequently forget the simple fact that these forum discussions actually do not matter terribly much. No Great Man - mover and shaker in the climate scene - is going to be reading these comments and acting on them. I never forget that contributing to these threads is a form of recreation - not something that really matters. For this reason, I find it a great shame when some contributors get so emotionally involved in these unimportant discussions that they start getting personal and insulting.

 

Fortunately, I do not permit small minded attacks to bother me on a personal level. I was advised many years ago, when still a teen ager, that it takes two people for an insult to be delivered. The insulter, and someone who is prepared to accept the insult. I have operated on the policy since then that I will not accept insults, and hence cannot be insulted.

 

I am quite happy to ignore them, and continue the debate with those people who are able and prepared to carry on the discussion amicably and with courtesy, whether they agree with me or not.

 

Thank you again for your support Pangloss. It is always uplifting to know that there are people who will stand up for our rights to free speech.

 

I wasn't attacking you. I was attacking your conclusion. Also, science is not a democracy, nor is this site required to allow free speech, being that it's privately owned and moderated. Your speech, btw, has not been limited. You've been allowed to post openly, and you have not been silenced.

 

Regardless, I was attacking your conclusions, not you. Please notice the difference.

 

 

 

Btw... now both you AND pangloss have used appeals to shame and appeal to ridicule, as opposed to presenting facts a) supporting your conclusion, or b) countering mine.

 

 

 

Specific to your point about these threads being purely for entertainment, I suggest that demanding accuracy and validity is an approach to life that should be embraced, not insulted when it makes supporting one's claims difficult. You also incorrectly state as fact that "these forum discussions actually do not matter terribly much. No Great Man - mover and shaker in the climate scene - is going to be reading these comments and acting on them."

 

I advise that, by engaging in challenging discourse, and learning to value supported positions and disregard unsupported positions, that many people reading these boards can go on to be inspired in the climate scene and implement very real change. This is why it is critical to debunk false claims and invalid positions. This is my opinion, and more of a personal philosophy, one with which I'm sure countless others here will agree.

[Pangloss]

I am quite happy to ignore them, and continue the debate with those people who are able and prepared to carry on the discussion amicably and with courtesy, whether they agree with me or not.

 

Thank you again for your support Pangloss.

 

No, thank you, because you've taught me a great deal about patience in the time you've been here.

 

But I don't think iNow is really attacking you personally, and I think this is really more of an institutional problem we need to work on.

 

The problem here, ultimately, is not that you're right and iNow is wrong, or vice versa, but that we don't have enough people espousing politically incorrect points of view. That's not because those points of view don't exist -- that's the part iNow doesn't seem to understand. He thinks if you can't prove your point then your point is wrong. That's not the case at all, it's only one possibility. You may very well be right but simply didn't make your case.

 

This is not a laboratory, it's a discussion board. Anybody who thinks we're proving or disproving science here is deluding themselves. This board is for (a) clarifying the details, and (b) debating conjectures and theories. You know, the stuff that hasn't been proven one way or the other yet. Like human contribution to global warming.

 

Human contribution to global warming, when all is said and done, is not proven, and the evidence consists of statistical correlations and small-scale cause-effect extrapolations. But since it may not be possible to ever actually prove, that means we may have to settle for what we have. So what we do about that is REALLY IMPORTANT. Do we listen to all points of view and proceed when we have a majority, recognizing that we could still be making a mistake and taking careful measures to protect against that possibility? Or do we drown out the opposition, ostracize anyone who's not on board, and take no precautions against that possibility whatsoever?

 

You know what, that doesn't seem like such a hard call to me. And it's the green text above that I want to support here. Not the red.

[iNow]

Pangloss - Wow.

[SkepticLance]

To Pangloss

 

Very sound comments.

 

I do not think iNow is stupid, or uneducated, or anything like that. He is probably a smart and well informed individual. However, I think I see a certain lack of mental flexibility, in that only a specific kind of evidence is acceptable.

 

I have long believed that scepticism is a vital part of scientific thinking. Simply accepting that something is so because the orthodox paradigm says so is not good thinking. These discussions on global warming often take the form of : "IPCC (or other authority) says something, so therefore it is true."

 

I am not prepared to deny good data. If the data is sound, then I will accept it. However, the same sound data can lead to any number of different interpretations. We all need to be aware of that. And we are all human - which means we interpret things according to our own preconceptions and biases. This, of course, applies to me as well as anyone else.

 

Anthropogenic global warming is real. The data is sound. However, when we start trying to predict the future, we enter a field that is unsound by its very nature. Any attempt to predict the future, in any field, and especially long term, is likely to prove totally wrong.

 

Many on this thread may be too young to remember. However, an excellent example is the Club of Rome, and their infamous publication in 1973 - "Limits to Growth".

 

They gathered together the very best minds in the world, scientists and economists, and set out to develop a model of future resource needs and availability. They did not have supercomputers, but the model was much simpler than current GCMs. Thus, it was do-able.

 

The only problem is that they got the results terribly wrong. For example, they predicted that the world would run out of oil by the year 2000. They predicted massive price rises in a range of resources, such as copper and nickel metal. In fact, by the deadlines given, the price of those materials actually fell.

 

How is it they got it all so wrong? Simple. They assumed that conditions that prevailed before 1973 would continue afterwards. The main error in their models came from the fact that human technology did not remain static. The massive improvements meant that the problems they so confidently predicted simply did not happen.

 

So here we are in 2007. We have another problem - anthropogenic global warming. Have the savants of today learned from the Club of Rome? No they have not. They set out to do the same thing, only much more complexly. Their predictions have about as much chance of success as the Club of Rome's had.

 

What will actually happen? We will see the same massive increase in technological capability, and this will change the entire picture. Those who predict a warming of 3 Celsius in the short term are ignoring human progress.

 

My opinion, which (since it is just an opinion, even if based on a firm historical basis) could be quite wrong, is that over the next 100 years, increases in energy needs will be more than matched by increases in our ability to fill those needs without emitting carbon. CO2 will increase for some decades yet, but not at an accelerating rate. We will gradually replace old technology carbon emitters with new technology that does not.

 

Obviously, this conclusion cannot be proven or disproved by debate. Only time will tell.