An Inconvenient Truth

[Chris C]

The confusion, as I see it, is due to two overlapping affects, which are lumped into one. If the earth never had any global warming and cooling cycles in the past, than x=y. But there is plenty of evidence that indicates that the earth has done this many times in the past, even without man made effects. So x may not equal y. It is being marketed as x=y.

 

If we graph the last billion years then this current cycle may look like more of the same. But if we plot only 0.000001% of that data and overlap this tail end with our own extras it looks different because we have no perspective. We could be going through one of those ups that occur but the plot won't show this since we use only a select piece of the all global warming data. I don't deny global warming, but I am not sure if cause and affect add.

 

Let me give an analogy of the affect. Say we plotted deaths from war since 1900. There were huge spikes during WWI and WW2 where millions died, and then it tapers off into the present. With global warming we limit the plot from 1990 to present, and fill the paper based on that scaling factor. That plot makes 1500 deaths from the Iraqi war look look huge. If we did the entire plot from 1900 to present, the 1990 to present looks flat. Which of these two are right. They are both correct, just one has a better scaling factor to scare people.

 

The data that made me skeptical was the polar ice caps melting on Mars at the same time they are on the earth. I sort of expected equal time but this was ushered out of the political theater. Then I looked to see if the funding for both points of view was balanced, to come to the truth. The funding is heavier on the global warming side. This is a convenient way to build a consensus by giving one side all the money to assure that one side wins the debate.

 

An analogy is GM and Ford needing government funding to help build an new hydrogen car. Both have valid designs. We give GM 90% and Ford 10%. Who is the chosen one to win the race. The deck is stacked. If we divided it equally between the two, may the best company win. But there is more political gain to be gotten out of one side winning the race. The moderate approach is boring and does not excite the crowd quite as much as the panic side. Fear is an easier way to get the herd to do things.

 

Here is what I wouldn't mind happening. Let us go with the global warming angle and run with it, lock, stock and barrel. If in the future, it turns out to be an exaggeration, we get to tar and feather all the players who made it possible. Or tattoo a GW on the forehead. We would see back peddling as scientists and leaders try to make sure this is what it really is.

 

This post is really confused. It's like saying we cannot say that an arson set off a house fire, or that a carelss camper cannot set off a forest fire, because fires "always happened" or that the last few minutes they were playing with matches is "negligible compared to the last century."

 

Your understanding of funding in science is also rather strange. You seem to think scientific topics are split into "two sides" and each side gets x amount of funding, and that it's like two lawyers trying to convince a judge who is right, and whoever buys the best lawyer wins (the AGW side must of had Johnnie Cochran, eh?). I know some scientists, some of my professors, etc and they don't get funding from "the global warming side," they get funding to study the behavior of the ice sheet, or to look at the cloud, etc They report those findings in the refereed literature (kind of like the stuff that shows the martian changes as a result of albedo and geological changes in the south). If you don't like those findings, don't criticize a method that is universal to all science, in all fields, for a very, very long time.

[iNow]

We could be going through one of those ups that occur but the plot won't show this since we use only a select piece of the all global warming data. I don't deny global warming, but I am not sure if cause and affect add.

 

I'll tell you what. I'll pretend for a moment that we haven't already covered this a billion times and I'll share some information with you to help you away from your current "spot on the fence."

 

Pangloss... here come those graphs you were talking about. I like visuals since it appears so few people actually read the words we are writing...

 

This post will specifically reference the idea of solar:

 

 

Here's a brief sampling below of a few of the issues. I encourage all readers to actually launch these links and read them in their entirety.

 

 

Nature - No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics

 

Sun not to blame for global warming.

 

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays

 

 

NATURE article in .pdf --> http://www.auger.org.ar/Auger_Sur/PDF/Nature%20July%202007.pdf

 

This paper is the final nail in the coffin for people who would like to make the Sun responsible for present global warming.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

 

RealClimate - Recent Warming But No Trend in Galactic Cosmic Rays

 

FIGURE 1. GCR counts from Climax (red) and the aa-index (blue). The straight lines show the best linear-fit against time estimated through linear regression. The GCR measurements are shown in solid black line, from which a trend of -180 +/- 253 counts/decade is estimated, and this is associated with a p-value (the probability of this being different to the null-hypothesis: zero trend) of 0.477 (not statistically significant at the 5% level).

 

The aa-index is represented by the blue line, and the corresponding trend of 1.5 +/- 0.4/decade is associated with a p-value of 0.0002 (highly statistically significant). A regression analysis points to a clear link between GCR and the aa-index, and the analysis of variance yields R2 = 0.1466 and the p-value= 0. The yellow line shows the global mean temperature from CRU for comparison.

 

[Data source: http://ulysses.uchicago.edu/NeutronMonitor/neutron_mon.html" , "http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/" and "ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DATA'].

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

RealClimate - A critique on Veizer’s Celestial Climate Driver

 

Fig.1: A comparison between CO2 and CRF indices with temperature proxy. Superimposed is the Beryllium-10 (blue). All curves are standardised. (paleaoproxy.R).

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

RealClimate - Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin

 

First, the particles observed in these experiments are orders of magnitude too small to be Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). In the press release, this is why they talk about the 'building blocks' of CCN, however, aggrandisation of these small particles is in no sense guaranteed (Missing step #1).

 

Secondly, the focus is on low clouds over the ocean. However, over the ocean, there are huge numbers of condensation nuclei related to sea salt particles. Thus to show that the cosmic ray mechanism is important, you need to show that it increases CCN even in the presence of lots of other CCN (Missing step #2).

 

Next, even if more CCN were made, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud cover (or optical thickness etc.) (Missing step #3).

 

And given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing - which despite their hand waving, is not at all well quantified (even the sign!) (Missing step #4).

 

Finally, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades - which is tricky, because there hasn't been (see the figure) (Missing step #5).

 

All of this will require significant work and there are certainly no guarantees that all the steps can be verified (which they have been for the greenhouse gas hypothesis) - especially the last!

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

RealClimate - ‘Cosmoclimatology’ - tired old arguments in new clothes

 

Another newer puzzle is the surprisingly good correlation between low clouds and GCR (se figure below), since higher clouds (global mean cover ~13%) or middle clouds (~20%) which are not influenced by GCR, mask the lower ones (which represents between 28% and 30% of the globe). It's indeed a surprisingly good fit between the two curves in the A&G article (reproduced below), considering the time structure of both the high-cloud, middle-cloud, and low-cloud curves, and the satellites cannot see the low-level clouds where there are higher clouds above blocking the view.

 

The fact that the variations are small (~1% amplitude!) compared to the total area, suggest that the overlap/masking effect by the higher cloud must be very small for a high correlation to shine through the upper clouds. Even if the clouds hypothetically were completely determined by GCR, one would expect to see deterioration of the correlation if viewed from above due to the presence of higher clouds not influenced by GCR. Another issue is that the cloud data used in this analysis was only based on the infra-red (IR) channel, and a better analysis would include the visible observations too, but if the visible data are included, then the correlation is lower.

 

 

 

Data Analysis to Understand Climate

 

 

[These articles have] been criticised for cherry picking references to make mere speculation appear as more solidly founded. To ignore aspects that don't fit the hypothesis is definitely not science. Neither is adjusting data so to provide a good fit without a solid and convincing justification. Science, however, means objectivity, transparency, repeatability, and in principle the possibility of falsification.

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

 

RealClimate - Cosmic rays don’t die so easily

 

 

In addition, there is no evidence of any long-term trend in the low cloud cover (IPCC AR4), and the GCR-hypothesis has a problem with explaining the trend in the diurnal cycle, enhanced warming in the Arctic and a cooling in the stratosphere. The only explanation we can offer is an enhanced greenhouse effect.

 

[T]he chapter on the connection between GCR and clouds is not yet closed, but all the evidence goes against the notion that GCR are the cause of the present global warming.

 

 

 

 

Btw... the natural cycles idea actually suggests that we should be experiencing a period of cooling right now, which we're not. That is one point against the suggestion, but I'd be glad to share data on that, too.

 

Or... will I be instead made fun of for using data and graphs in my response as if that's somehow the politically correct thing to do?

[Pangloss]

Isn't this akin to teaching the laughable "controversy" of ID in the evolution classroom? Should we also teach the stork concept about child birth? What about in astronomy class? Should equal time be spent on astrology? Or in chemistry, why isn't equal time given to alchemy?

 

Because it's wrong!

 

I'm not arguing ID, so comparing me to ID arguers is just subtle disparagement and ad hominem. I'm not arguing that global warming shouldn't be taught in the classroom, nor that it shouldn't be studied, nor that human causes shouldn't be studied or taught in the classroom. I think all of those things should be taught and studied, and I have zero interest in trying to convince school children that global warming might not be caused by humans, either. As far as I'm concerned that's an issue for scientists. OBJECTIVE scientists.

 

I think it's likely that humans are behind global warming, and certainly have to be viewed as a factor. What I have a problem with is the demonization rhetoric and the closing-of-debate. This closed-minded insistence that no dissention be tolerated even though the point hasn't actually been proven and another answer remains possible.

 

As I said, that makes it a political argument, not a scientific one. And it's an argument you've already won me over on, in spades. Let's clean up the air and water and do something about carbon and everything else, absolutely.

 

 

If someone has evidence which shows that there is another forcing factor that exceeds the impact of human activity on global climate, I'd be glad see it.

 

An obvious logical fallacy. Several are implied in that sentence, and your larger argument, actually.

 

Composition fallacy

Post hoc propter ergo hoc

Argumentum ad populum

 

Not to mention that's like trying to prove a negative. Prove to me that there's no intelligent life outside of Earth in the universe and I'll believe that aliens have never landed on Earth. And by the way, when did you stop beating your sister?

 

You're not exactly making your case with arguments like that. You're making mine.

 

Greater than 90% certainty that the warming is anthropogenic is not "stopping short."

 

Sure it is, but that was just a round number anyway. An opinion. A political statement.

 

 

Statistical evidence, along with other investigations, can demonstrate causality. It's done in medical tests all the time.

 

Yes, and we've seen what happens when they settle on short-term studies with small statistical samples, haven't we? Drugs that have to be recalled later because the greater-sized statistical study shows that the early evidence was way off base. Sometimes they'll stop those studies after just a few people out of thousands die, even though they have no idea why those people are dying. That's how weak that approach is.

 

And yet it's fast becoming the cornerstone of modern science. Glory glory hallelujah, the truth be marching on! Whatever the truth happens to need to be this week to sell what needs to be sold, anyway.

 

Still, if you want to make the point that our statistical evidence today is, say, vastly stronger than it was, say, 5 years ago, and that it's still pointing in the same direction, I've no problem with saying that to people. But that's a big difference from silence up the opposition and riding it out of town on a rail.

 

 

And I wholeheartedly agree with this. But questions about the cause of the warming are ones of science, because if one erroneously concludes that the warming is natural, it is very easy to justify doing nothing. The political response has to be based on valid science. The political process can certainly bring other considerations into the decision, of course, and still decide to do nothing, but what can't be tolerated is the decision to do nothing, and then subsequently present only evidence that supports that decision.

 

The scientific questions do need to be addressed, and here in this forum, I agree. That's not what I'm arguing against.

 

 

And that's a strawman, because science doesn't "prove" anything. It's one of the tactics that the denialists use...

 

-- like calling anybody who disagrees with human causation a "denialist" --

 

..., because they then equate "don't understand fully" with "don't understand." What science does, however, is to quantify the level of understanding.

 

Fine, but we've already agreed that "quantifying the level of understanding" in this case (human contribution) does not equate to the political decision to act or the subjects we will debate in this forum. So you don't disagree with me at all, you agree with me completely.

 

 

If a rock is on a ledge one day, and the next there are bits of rock at the bottom of the ravine, that when you piece them together, strongly resemble the rock that used to be on the ledge, you'd probably agree that the rock fell, under the influence of gravity, and broke. But you can't prove it.

 

If you want society to do something about falling rocks that's all you need right there. Which is why I think we have all the information we need to act on the issue of human contribution. An excellent analogy, thank you very much!

 

I think generally this thread has been assessing the science of the movie, not Gore's policy recommendations. I suppose when the discussion at hand is something like An Inconvenient Truth, policy certainly plays into it, but if it's a policy discussion you're seeking, I think it should happen in Politics.

 

No, one policy is being allowed to promulgate for discussion in this thread (and sub-forum), even though it is political in nature, and none other is allowed.

 

If that wasn't the case I wouldn't be regularly opening my mouth here.

[iNow]

I think it's likely that humans are behind global warming, and certainly have to be viewed as a factor. What I have a problem with is the demonization rhetoric and the closing-of-debate. This closed-minded insistence that no dissention be tolerated even though the point hasn't actually been proven and another answer remains possible.

There you go again, despite correction, using the idea of "proven" and this concept of non-zero possibility. It is more than 90% certain that humans are the cause. What the fu(k else do you need?

 

This is also an interesting arena, because your lack of acceptance is more than just frustrating and stupid, it hurts ME and MY FAMILY and MY FRIENDS. You (and others) disregard for the evidence borders on negligent homicide.

 

This is why the tone is so harsh, the rhetoric so powerful, the attempts so empassioned.

 

If you (or others) choose to lie to themselves in the face of this issue then ALL of us suffer! It even goes beyond human life.

 

This is a moral issue, not a political one.

 

 

 

If someone has evidence which shows that there is another forcing factor that exceeds the impact of human activity on global climate, I'd be glad see it.

An obvious logical fallacy. Several are implied in that sentence, and your larger argument, actually.

 

Composition fallacy

Post hoc propter ergo hoc

Argumentum ad populum

 

Not to mention that's like trying to prove a negative. Prove to me that there's no intelligent life outside of Earth in the universe and I'll believe that aliens have never landed on Earth. And by the way, when did you stop beating your sister?

Uhh... what?

 

I said, "If you know something which proves that there is another factor contributing to climate change more than humans, please share your evidence," and you accuse me of logical fallacies and false dilemmas? Perhaps you should read your own wiki links a bit more closely, as you seem to have seriously misapplied them here.

 

If you have evidence, share it. I welcome it.

 

"An obvious logical fallacy." Gimme a break. This is why people get so aggressive. That's just stupid, and you are, by no means, a stupid man... yet... you say such things very sincerely.

 

 

<to borrow swansont's example> If you see a round rock on a window ledge one day, and then the next day you notice that the rock is no longer on the ledge, but down on the side walk you see that there are several pieces of rock which, when put together, look just like the rock that was on the ledge the previous day, you conclude that the rock must have fallen, pulled by gravity, and smashed on the concrete. You are certain this happened. All of the evidence shows this, and no other explanation is available which describes the situation so clearly.

 

But, you can't prove it.

 

 

 

This is why I make the comparison to creationist arguments.

[bascule]

This closed-minded insistence that no dissention be tolerated even though the point hasn't actually been proven and another answer remains possible.

 

The entire scientific mentality is built around the idea that the present scientifically accepted answer is falsifiable and that other answers always remain in the realm of possiblity. However, tolerance of alternative opinions is contingent upon their merit. Are other answers more consistent with evidence than the scientifically accepted answer?

 

The reason the community around here generally shuts down dissention is that it has no scientific merit. Now, granted, there are many individuals leveraging claims which do have merit and should be examined in the context of present evidence. However, you have to keep in mind that these same arguments have been batted around back and forth in the peer review process ad infinitum before they reach laymen in the general public. That said, such arguments do deserve examination and do give pause.

 

But they're the exception to the rule in global warming discussions around here. Most arguments against the present consensus are completely without scientific merit, and that includes all the ones you just leveraged.

 

To go beyond arguments against the present scientific theory, there's the failure of opponents of the theory to formulate their own explanation which can be tested within a model and can successfully reconstruct the historical climate. As soon as someone is able to do this, then great! We have a real scientific debate on our hands as to which model is valid.

 

However, as far as climate science is concerned today, there's one game in town. You're either for the only workable model or you're against it. If you're against it, be prepared for your arguments to be labeled as ludicrous unless you have a sound, scientific position on which you're opposing it. That's certainly possible, and there are climate scientists who have done it successfully. They're in a fractional minority of opponents of the scientific consensus.

 

Yes, and we've seen what happens when they settle on short-term studies with small statistical samples, haven't we?

 

Are you accusing climate scientists of static analysis?

 

And yet it's fast becoming the cornerstone of modern science. Glory glory hallelujah, the truth be marching on! Whatever the truth happens to need to be this week to sell what needs to be sold, anyway.

 

Still, if you want to make the point that our statistical evidence today is, say, vastly stronger than it was, say, 5 years ago, and that it's still pointing in the same direction, I've no problem with saying that to people. But that's a big difference from silence up the opposition and riding it out of town on a rail.

 

Newsflash: the standard model is built on statistical evidence. Why all the opposition to climate science and not to quantum mechanics?

[SkepticLance]

Pangloss

 

While I don't agree with your basic premise, you have my full sympathy in the nature of the opposition you meet. I affirm that anthropogenic global warming is real. Nevertheless, I am sceptical of some of the detail. When I express any of this scepticism, I get met with opposition of the sort that one receives when expressing blasphemy inside a temple.

 

For example : I noted in one discussion that, in the winter just past, Arctic sea ice had made a very substantial recovery towards historic norms. In making this claim, I was 100% correct, but it was as though I had denied their God. The opposition was vociferous and emotional. You need to remember that, for many of the people on this forum, anthropogenic global warming is not just science - it is their religion.

[iNow]

I noted in one discussion that, in the winter just past, Arctic sea ice had made a very substantial recovery towards historic norms. In making this claim, I was 100% correct, but it was as though I had denied their God. The opposition was vociferous and emotional. You need to remember that, for many of the people on this forum, anthropogenic global warming is not just science - it is their religion.

 

It's comments like this which are consistently challenged, not the data, which you regularly fail to share. As has been stated repeatedly, if you shared the data and left out the condescending commentary, your posts would be respected much more.

[bascule]

While I don't agree with your basic premise, you have my full sympathy in the nature of the opposition you meet. I affirm that anthropogenic global warming is real. Nevertheless, I am sceptical of some of the detail. When I express any of this scepticism, I get met with opposition of the sort that one receives when expressing blasphemy inside a temple.

 

Opposition like...

 

There appears to be a glitch in the general pattern of global warming.

 

...in the event there's a data point marginally above the trend line?

 

 

OMFG A GLITCH! or not...

[SkepticLance]

To Pangloss

 

You can see what I mean. Just a couple of hours, and substantial overreactions from both iNow and Bascule already!

 

Guys,

I am giving you three days open slather. As it happens, I am off to a special family gathering for 3 days, taking me away from my computer. You can have all the goes at me you like. I cannot reply for 3 days.

Have fun!

[swansont]

I'm not arguing ID, so comparing me to ID arguers is just subtle disparagement and ad hominem.

 

Unless the comparison was to the subject matter and tactics, rather than the person making the argument. Then it's neither; just an observation about subject matter and tactics. Part of the issue of arguments such as these is taking statements personally when they are not meant that way.

 

An obvious logical fallacy. Several are implied in that sentence, and your larger argument, actually.

 

Umm, what? "Show me data" is a logical fallacy?

 

 

Sure it is, but that was just a round number anyway. An opinion. A political statement.

 

Huh? Is there really any point in having a discussion if you are going to dismiss scientific findings as opinion and/or political statement?

 

Yes, and we've seen what happens when they settle on short-term studies with small statistical samples, haven't we? Drugs that have to be recalled later because the greater-sized statistical study shows that the early evidence was way off base. Sometimes they'll stop those studies after just a few people out of thousands die, even though they have no idea why those people are dying. That's how weak that approach is.

 

And it's all statistical analysis - showing what drugs work what drugs don't. I don't see how that supports your claim. Anyway, science is all about statistical analysis.

 

 

Still, if you want to make the point that our statistical evidence today is, say, vastly stronger than it was, say, 5 years ago, and that it's still pointing in the same direction, I've no problem with saying that to people. But that's a big difference from silence up the opposition and riding it out of town on a rail.

(emphasis added)

 

You have yet to demonstrate where that is occurring. I ask for data, and you respond with rhetoric. The whole issue in microcosm.

 

For example : I noted in one discussion that, in the winter just past, Arctic sea ice had made a very substantial recovery towards historic norms. In making this claim, I was 100% correct, but it was as though I had denied their God. The opposition was vociferous and emotional. You need to remember that, for many of the people on this forum, anthropogenic global warming is not just science - it is their religion.

 

Bad example, actually. The issue with this, if you will recall, is that the "source" you cited actually did make the claims that were being questioned, and rebutted.

[iNow]

Opposition like...

About a month later, there was also this:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=393455#post393455

 

The interesting point for me, is that Arctic sea ice is almost back to its historic limits. We have been told over the past few years that the sea ice was disappearing and the polar bear was in deep trouble. It looks as though certain catastrophists spoke too soon.

[Pangloss]

What the fu(k else do you need?

 

What else do I need? I need people to stop being disparaged and insulted just because they don't believe what you believe. I need this board to be a place where people have egalitarian and open-minded discussions, not receive insult and hurtful discouragement just because they espouse a backward or ignorant point of view.

 

There's certainly nothing scientific about that. And you know it.

 

 

This is also an interesting arena, because your lack of acceptance is more than just frustrating and stupid, it hurts ME and MY FAMILY and MY FRIENDS. You (and others) disregard for the evidence borders on negligent homicide.

 

This is why the tone is so harsh, the rhetoric so powerful, the attempts so empassioned.

 

Which isn't a proven point either, but more to the point at the moment, in your mind that belief of proof justifies disparagement and hateful rhetoric if that's what it takes to bring people in line with what you need them to do.

 

And yet you talk to Norman Albers as if he's doing something completely different from what you're doing. Interesting.

 

 

This is a moral issue, not a political one.

 

K, it's a moral issue too. Doesn't make it a scientific one. It's a moral, political, and faith-based issue. And you feel that those not following the correct faith need to be drummed out with tough love, or whatever. I get it. I'm glad to see you finally admitting it openly and talking about it.

 

It's too bad nobody on your side of the argument will read what you just wrote. A shame, really. Example:

 

But that's a big difference from silence up the opposition and riding it out of town on a rail.

You have yet to demonstrate where that is occurring. I ask for data' date=' and you respond with rhetoric. The whole issue in microcosm.

[/quote']

 

See? Well yes, of course you see, iNow -- you ride the very wave, counting on the fact that people on your side of the argument will ignore most of your posts unless they get seriously out of hand. As long as you keep it under a certain level of behavior, you can verbally waterboard anybody you like.

[iNow]

What else do I need? I need people to stop being disparaged and insulted just because they don't believe what you believe. I need this board to be a place where people have egalitarian and open-minded discussions, not receive insult and hurtful discouragement just because they espouse a backward or ignorant point of view.

Your right not to be offended does not supercede my right to offend you.

 

If you went around claiming that you could evade the effects of (the theory of) gravity riding on a purple unicorn, you can bet your ass you'd be made fun of for that also.

 

 

Which isn't a proven point either

Bullshit.

Our actions change the climate. Proven.

Your lack of acceptance of fact and reluctance to change results in continued climate change in the future. Proven.

Continued climate change results in more extreme climatic events. Proven.

Drought and lack of fresh water will become more common as a result of the climate change. Proven.

Farming of food to sustain our planet will need to see drastic improvements in both method and efficiency to deal with the struggles being caused by global climate change. Proven.

 

Oh... sorry... Extremely likely. We don't "prove" things, we demonstrate conclusions using degrees of confidence.

 

 

but more to the point at the moment, in your mind that belief of proof justifies disparagement and hateful rhetoric if that's what it takes to bring people in line with what you need them to do.

I actually only attack ignorance, false claims, and unsupported positions. I attack people who misframe issues, and who distract (consciously or not) others from what is needed ot overcome these issues which have already been established as fact.

 

 

And yet you talk to Norman Albers as if he's doing something completely different from what you're doing. Interesting.

Whatever. Nobody has asked me a specific question which I have failed to address. Nobody has explained why they disagree with my position and asked me to support why I continue to hold the position that I do. I haven't told anybody to "deal with it" nor have I told anyone "No, I will not answer your questions."

 

You're throwing feces, not making cogent arguments.

 

(for those who don't know, Pangloss is referring to my recent exchanges with another member - Norman Albers - here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31826 )

 

 

Frankly, if you hate it here so much, and you disagree so much with the agreement we all share on the issue of global climate change, then why do you continue to post at SFN at all?

[Mr Skeptic]

And yet you [iNow] talk to Norman Albers as if he's doing something completely different from what you're doing. Interesting.

 

Um, the similarity I see here is iNow asking both you and Norman Albers for data, and both of you responding with no data but lots of rhetoric. And, in your case, ignoring the data presented as well.

[Pangloss]

You must have caught me online, but I'm heading out so I'll have to make this brief.

 

Your right not to be offended does not supercede my right to offend you.

 

Actually on this board my right not to be insulted by you does in fact supercede your right to insult me. In society at large you have a point, but not here. And you've got the infraction list to prove it, guy -- the only member I know of who has two pages of infractions to his name. And that's just the more eggregious stuff -- doesn't count the stuff they let you get away with because they agree with you or don't find it worth the effort to fix.

 

 

Bullshit.

 

Like that.

 

 

Your lack of acceptance of fact and reluctance to change results in continued climate change in the future. Proven.

 

I'm not reluctant to change human behavior in this area, and have stated such several times.

 

 

I actually only attack ignorance, false claims, and unsupported positions. I attack people who misframe issues, and who distract (consciously or not) others from what is needed ot overcome these issues which have already been established as fact.

 

Right, that's exactly right. You attack people whom you feel are like that. Insult them, curse at them, berate them, abuse them, and generally are rude to them, because you feel it's justified by your position. I completely agree that this is what you do.

 

And I believe that if you a "denialist" then you wouldn't be allowed to get away with it. But because the position you're espousing is that human contribution is behind GW, you're allowed to get away with far more than you would otherwise, mainly due to the standard human behavior of same-POV-thread-skimming.

 

 

Frankly, if you hate it here so much, and you disagree so much with the agreement we all share on the issue of global climate change, then why do you continue to post at SFN at all?

 

I don't hate it here at all, so aside from the obvious assumption and false dilemma logical fallacy, there you go once again acting like the choir director, shaping the opinion of SFN and driving dissenters away. QED.

 

 

Whatever. Nobody has asked me a specific question which I have failed to address. Nobody has explained why they disagree with my position and asked me to support why I continue to hold the position that I do. I haven't told anybody to "deal with it" nor have I told anyone "No, I will not answer your questions."

 

I completely agree. I didn't say you weren't a valuable member or that I didn't respect your opinion. That may have been my opinion in the past (it never really was, I just got very angry at you a few times), but it's absolutely not my opinion now.

 

I'm sorry if I've pissed you off in this thread, but it's not about slamming iNow, it's about pointing out something that I feel is a weakness and a lack of integrity in threads like these. We need to focus on the facts, knock off the angry rhetoric, and frankly if you accepted the occassional reminder that some of the science may not be there yet (or just counter-pointed it as swansont replied), that would be sufficient. That's progress.

 

You win these things over time, iNow, by keeping the pressure on to check out all the loose ends in every theory, NOT by driving the opposition out of town on a rail.

 

The reason the community around here generally shuts down dissention is that it has no scientific merit.

 

(to bascule) I don't buy this, by the way. Nobody tries to shut down experimental attemps to measure the speed of light or a myriad of other commonly accepted scientific theories. They try to shut down global warming "denialists" because they feel harmed by the dissent. That's a political position, not a scientific one.

 

You want to make a case that there's only so much federal money to go around, fine, I'll even buy into that to some extent. But scientific investigation is scientific investigation, period, it's either correctly and validly done, or it is not. You don't get to shut down valid inquiry just because it's politically incorrect. Not for reasons of science, at any rate.

[iNow]

And yet, you sir, continue to attack members instead of supporting your position with data. Not everything needs to be forced into political boxes, Pangloss, and your partisan ideologies are not only frustrating, but very often insulting.

[swansont]

 

You win these things over time, iNow, by keeping the pressure on to check out all the loose ends in every theory, NOT by driving the opposition out of town on a rail.

 

 

And I point out that you make this claim again without backing it up with any examples.

 

(to bascule) I don't buy this, by the way. Nobody tries to shut down experimental attemps to measure the speed of light or a myriad of other commonly accepted scientific theories. They try to shut down global warming "denialists" because they feel harmed by the dissent. That's a political position, not a scientific one.

 

You haven't been following any of the threads in which Eric5 has been posting lately, have you? His positions have been attacked as vigorously as we see in global warming discussions. That's how scientific discussions go — you thoroughly attempt to falsify claims, precisely because nothing can be proven deductively. But in relativity there is much less rhetoric to get in the way and stir up emotion.

 

And that's a big issue in the global warming threads, because rhetoric and other debating tactics get added to the mix. Frustrations grow and tempers flare when a person making a false or tenuous claim is asked to support it and responds with something other than a scientific source (e.g. no response, a fallacy-ridden response, repetition of the claim, or a link to something that isn't a scientific source,). After a few rounds, someone calls the poster an idiot, and then the persecution claims start.

 

It's a pity we don't keep score of the behavior that goads people into infractions (or at least to the same extent). I don't say this to defend flaming — one has to learn not to take the bait — but scientific arguments and political arguments use a different "scoring" system. In a scientific discussion, using a logical fallacy invalidates your argument, while in a political discussion it often scores a point. In science, making an unsubstantiated claim scores no points, but in politics it depends on the quality of the sound bite. In science, a false claim diminishes your credibility, but in politics it often not only has no penalty, it can be seen to score points — creationists do this all the time. (And if you want a quick example of this, McCain's comments about bear DNA demonstrates what I'm talking about — crappy science arguments used to score political points)

 

Take "driving the opposition out of town on a rail" as an example. To me that carries no weight until examples have been given to allow the opportunity to rebut. It sounds good, though, so some might think that there's something to it. The issue here is whether you score these discussions using a scientific scorecard or a political one. Many of us want to have a scientific discussion and not have a political framework forced upon it. Rebutting bad arguments and flawed claims is not an inherently political action, especially if it does not involve policy discussions.

[Pangloss]

I see no need to reiterate my position, but you can assume that I will continue to point out flaming when it's ignored because it's politically-correct flaming, and that I will not sit by and allow an atmosphere of intolerance and closed-mindedness to be created and even lauded in the name of science.

 

I agree with much of what you said there, swansont. Rebutting bad arguments is NOT an inherently politial action, I agree, and I also agree that people want to have scientific discussion without having a political framework forced upon it. You are absolutely right.

 

But talk about "convincing society what to do" and "how do we get the red-staters to stop listening to idiots" IS political. When you open that door, two or more opinions are going to walk through it.

[bascule]

I see no need to reiterate my position, but you can assume that I will continue to point out flaming when it's ignored because it's politically-correct flaming

 

Flaming isn't exactly a politically correct activity, and people aren't flaming you, they're just pointing out why you're wrong.

 

and that I will not sit by and allow an atmosphere of intolerance and closed-mindedness to be created and even lauded in the name of science.

 

That sounds like a politically correct mindset.

 

But talk about "convincing society what to do" and "how do we get the red-staters to stop listening to idiots" IS political.

 

Who's saying that? Especially in this thread...

 

All I'm seeing are scientific rebuttals to your arguments, Pangloss, and you're trying to interject politics into it. That's just one big fat red herring.

[Pangloss]

But talk about "convincing society what to do" and "how do we get the red-staters to stop listening to idiots" IS political.

Who's saying that? Especially in this thread...

 

All I'm seeing are scientific rebuttals to your arguments' date=' Pangloss, and you're trying to interject politics into it. That's just one big fat red herring.[/quote']

 

Oh really? All science, eh? No politics in this thread until I came along?

 

The first three pages of this thread are about Al Gore's living habits. And here's an example of one member saying that he felt it was okay for Gore to exaggerate because if he doesn't then people aren't going to react and solve this problem!

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=401634&postcount=53

 

And another member replying that he agreed with that being a good idea.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=401637&postcount=54

 

Not only that, but you've contributed political analysis to this thread yourself. Not to mention your statement in your last post that "science shuts down dissention is that it has no scientific merit" (which I showed by example to be false, which you ignored).

 

And you have the gall to say that no flaming has happened in this thread, but you'd have to be blind to miss it, with iNow calling SkepticLance a "condescending twit" (a personal attack completely out of the blue, which he has yet to apologize for) and a moderator calling for the flaming to end (which it did not).

 

Wanna try that again?

[bascule]

Oh really? All science, eh? No politics in this thread until I came along?

 

Not what I said...

 

But talk about "convincing society what to do" and "how do we get the red-staters to stop listening to idiots" IS political.

 

Who's saying that? Especially in this thread...

 

All I'm seeing are scientific rebuttals to your arguments' date=' Pangloss, and you're trying to interject politics into it. That's just one big fat red herring.[/quote']

 

The first three pages of this thread are about Al Gore's living habits. And here's an example of one member saying that he felt it was okay for Gore to exaggerate because if he doesn't then people aren't going to react and solve this problem[/b']!

 

Yes, an ad hominem attack on The Inconvenient Truth by opponents of its message. I can't speak for those people...

 

Not only that, but you've contributed political analysis to this thread yourself[/url'].

 

Water vulnerability is a political issue?

 

Not to mention your statement in your last post that "science shuts down dissention is that it has no scientific merit" (which I showed by example to be false, which you ignored).

 

When did you do that?

 

And you have the gall to say that no flaming has happened in this thread, but you'd have to be blind to miss it, with iNow calling SkepticLance a "condescending twit"

 

Again, not what I said:

 

Who's saying that? Especially in this thread...

 

All I'm seeing are scientific rebuttals to your arguments' date=' Pangloss, and you're trying to interject politics into it. That's just one big fat red herring.[/quote']

[iNow]

And you have the gall to say that no flaming has happened in this thread, but you'd have to be blind to miss it, with iNow calling SkepticLance a "condescending twit" (a personal attack completely out of the blue, which he has yet to apologize for) and a moderator calling for the flaming to end (which it did not).

 

Wanna try that again?

 

Pangloss,

 

You're ignoring evidence here. Your impicit suggestion is that such actions are allowed, that such comments go unpunished, and that there is some politically correct patrol actively supressing counter points to discussions on human impact on global climate change. As has been said, bad data is rebutted. Non-relevant comments are treated as such. That's just how science works, and that's precisely what we've been doing here, and in other threads.

 

Further, I DID receive an infraction for my comments.

 

Can we now please get off your boilerplate already?

[Pangloss]

Well I can hardly bow out of a discussion when Bascule is asking me direct questions. Besides, I believe I've earned some acknowledgement for the points I've raised AND given evidence for in this discussion. If you two didn't want to hear what I had to say, you shouldn't have baited me in the first place. (You in this post, bascule in this one.) You wanted an argument, and you got one. Why complain now?

 

 

Yes, an ad hominem attack on The Inconvenient Truth by opponents of its message. I can't speak for those people...

 

There were two sides participating in that discussion. And that was just one example. You just ignored this post, in which a member of this forum, in this very thread, made the political statement that he felt it was okay for Gore to exaggerate because if he doesn't then people aren't going to react and solve this problem, and this post, from another member agreeing with that point.

 

 

Water vulnerability is a political issue?

 

Your comment contained a political statement as well as an analysis. For someone so well versed in logical fallacies, you sure make a habit of dragging out that old red herring.

 

 

When did you do that?

 

You said that the community shuts down dissention when it has no scientific merit (in this post). I disagreed with that in this post, saying that dissent is shut down here for political reasons, not scientific ones. I've gone on to show examples of that in this thread.

 

 

Again, not what I said:

 

It is exactly what you were saying. You implied that I'm the only one injecting politics into this thread, and I directly refuted that claim.

 

 

As has been said' date=' bad data is rebutted. Non-relevant comments are treated as such. That's just how science works, and that's precisely what we've been doing here, and in other threads.

 

Further, I DID receive an infraction for my comments.

 

Can we now please get off your boilerplate already?[/quote']

 

That's amusing. In one sentence you claim that you're just doing science here, and in the very next sentence you admit getting an infraction for calling SkepticLance a "condescending twit".

 

But yes, if you insist, I'm happy to move on. I feel quite satisfied with this discussion. Thank you for inviting me to voice my opinion.

[iNow]

Yes. Let's just move on. This is getting silly.

[bascule]

It is exactly what you were saying. You implied...

 

Exactly what I'm saying! Except it's not, it's... implied?

 

...that I'm the only one injecting politics into this thread

 

Okay, let me deconstruct what I'm saying here for you since apparently you can't see it except through Pangloss-colored glasses:

 

All I'm seeing are scientific rebuttals to your arguments, Pangloss, and you're trying to interject politics into it. That's just one big fat red herring.

 

You argued directly against the validity of climate science. People responded to your arguments and defended the science. But rather than actually try to defend your viewpoint, you change the subject and start blustering about politics. This after going so far as to dismiss the ability of science to determine causality from statistical analysis...

 

Is science this abstract concept to you, or does it actually mean something?