# Any Other Lefties Dubious on AGW? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 27, 2009, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156 "2009-06-27T06:56:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/121 "2009-06-29T14:12:23Z")
Speaking on seeing it. There is the reports from Greenland’s ice melting: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/_RVAiIkTF3E/hqdefault.jpg "Greenland ice lakes drain at speed of Niagara Falls") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RVAiIkTF3E) Of notice is the conclusion that while this is evidence of warming causing changes, the change is not as severe as many feared. > **[Greenland ice tipping point 'further off than thought'](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/10/greenland-ice-sheet-climate-change)** > > Previous studies have misjudged the so-called Greenland tipping point of irreversible melting, expert claims AGW is here, CAGW that pertains to items like “what should we do about it” or “We will all suffer a catastrophe” is not so clear, that part needs more evidence and this is where future discussions should focus on. IMHO it will depend on where you are on earth for the effects of AWG to show huge changes or small ones. ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/122 "2009-06-29T21:46:21Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yet I recently started a thread asking AGW alarmists what would evidence cause them to change their minds, and got essentially the same response from your camp. > > So perhaps I can put it t you: what evidence could I collect that would cause you to change your mind? I guess I don’t know whether I qualify as an ‘alarmist’ or not in your view - did you see my post in your other thread? [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521245&page=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521245&page=2) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/123 "2009-06-30T00:19:23Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > I guess I don’t know whether I qualify as an ‘alarmist’ or not in your view - did you see my post in your other thread? [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521245&page=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=521245&page=2) Yep, although it happened after I abandoned the thread to the threadshitting, that’s the one where you said that it can’t be falsified and couldn’t tell me of any evidence I could collect that would cause you to reject AGW. You tried to define the problem. You rejected the IPCC hypothesis that I everyone else uses: that humans are causing the current temperature rises. Instead you wanted to adopt some other hypotheses about what might happen potentially at some future date. Like I said, nobody in your camp could give an example of any evidence at all that would convince them to reject AGW. AGW simply isn’t falsifiable. It isn’t science by the standard Popperian definition of science. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/124 "2009-06-30T00:33:20Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Yep, although it happened after I abandoned the thread to the threadshitting, that’s the one where you said that it can’t be falsified and couldn’t tell me of any evidence I could collect that would cause you to reject AGW. You tried to define the problem. You rejected the IPCC hypothesis that I everyone else uses: that humans are causing the current temperature rises. Instead you wanted to adopt some other hypotheses about what might happen potentially at some future date. > > Like I said, nobody in your camp could give an example of any evidence at all that would convince them to reject AGW. AGW simply isn’t falsifiable. It isn’t science by the standard Popperian definition of science. :dubious: > **[RealClimate: What the IPCC models really say Lo que dicen realmente los...](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/)** > > RealClimate: Over the last couple of months there has been much blog-viating about what the models used in the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4) do and do not predict about natural variability in the presence of a long-term greenhouse gas related... > [@](#): > > So, to give one possibility, if the global mean temperature from 2050 to 2070 would end up being lower than the 1950 to 1970 global mean temperature, would that be enough to falsify the IPCC projections, assuming no volcanic eruptions, cometary impacts, etc.? > > [Response: …and that the trajectories of the GHGs and aerosols looked something like this scenario. Yes. - gavin] (Posted 3 times already.) ---
**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/125 "2009-06-30T00:54:36Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > one where you said that it can’t be falsified and couldn’t tell me of any evidence I could collect that would cause you to reject AGW. No, I did not say that. I said AGW has **already** passed tests of falsification and that if the results of those tests had come out differently AGW would have and should have been rejected. > [@wevets](#): > > I believe AGW has already passed several falsifiable tests. > [@Blake](#): > > You rejected the IPCC hypothesis that I everyone else uses: that humans are causing the current temperature rises. > [@wevets](#): > > I also completely reject the notion that models **are AGW**. Models are built taking into account the principle of AGW (that human emissions of GHGs can change the Earth’s temperature and therefore its climate.) In the same way that [this](http://www.rclsoftware.org.uk/gr) is not the Theory of Gravity, but uses the principles of the Theory of Gravity, models are not AGW, but use the principles of AGW to make predictions. What I am saying is that if a hypothesis (we’ll call it “Model A”) states “In 2020, temperatures will be 4.5 degrees higher than in 1990” it is not all of AGW - for example, what if in 2020, temperatures were 8 degrees higher than in 1990? AGW would still be a viable hypothesis, even though Model A would be falsified. Similarly, what if in 2020, temperatures were 2 degrees higher than in 1990? AGW would still be a viable hypothesis. What if temperatures were -5 degrees (5 degrees lower) 2020-2050 vs. 1990? Then Model A and AGW would both be falsified. People too easily confuse a particular model (e.g. Hansen’s 1988 scenarios A, B, or C) with the entirety of AGW. > [@Blake](#): > > Instead you wanted to adopt some other hypotheses about what might happen potentially at some future date. 😕 I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I wanted to adopt no other hypothesis “potentially at some future date” what the hell does that even mean? 😕 > [@Blake](#): > > AGW simply isn’t falsifiable. It isn’t science by the standard Popperian definition of science. It has already passed several tests of falsification. It will be subjected to others in the future. Of course it’s science. I think you have grossly misunderstood my post (this one: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11253388&postcount=62](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11253388&postcount=62)) ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/126 "2009-06-30T01:34:48Z")
> [@wevets](#): > > I said AGW has **already** passed tests of falsification and that if the results of those tests had come out differently AGW would have and should have been rejected. You didn’t say that and you certainly provided no evidence for such a claim. You said that they were examples of testing alternative hypotheses, which they were. > [@](#): > > …What I am saying is that if a … I’m sorry I have no idea what you are saying here. You seem to be saying that AGW will remain a valid hypothesis even when the predictions it makes fail to come true. > [@](#): > > I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I wanted to adopt no other hypothesis “potentially at some future date” what the hell does that even mean? 😕 There’s no pont pretending to be confused when I can quote what yo said.. The AGW hypothesis as used by the IPCC is that human activities **are** causing measurable warming to the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans right now and have been doing so for ~50 years. You OTOH (and I quote) “would define AGW theory as stating: Human emissions of greenhouse gases have the **potential** to increase the Earth’s average temperature and change the general state of Earth’s climate.” (emphasis mine) So when you say that you don’t want to adopt any other hypothesis you are bare-faced not telling the truth. I dont; even know why you bother to make such untrue claims when i cna easily quote where you did make them. Disingenuous at the very best. So I repeat : You tried to define the problem out of existence. You rejected the IPCC hypothesis that I everyone else uses: that humans are causing the current temperature rises. Instead you wanted to adopt some other hypotheses about what might happen potentially at some future date. > [@](#): > > It has already passed several tests of falsification. No, it hasn’t > [@](#): > > It will be subjected to others in the future. Well name one. I’ve asked you to do so several times. I even started a thread asking you to name one. Name one “test of falsification” that AGW will face that, if it fails, will cause you to reject AGW. > [@](#): > > Of course it’s science. N, it isn’t. Not by Popper’s definition it isn’t. > [@](#): > > I think you have grossly misunderstood my post You problem is that I understood it perfectly. You tried to define the problem out of existence. You reject the IPCC hypothesis that I everyone else uses: that humans are causing the current temperature rises. Instead you wanted to adopt some other hypotheses about what might happen potentially at some future date. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/127 "2009-06-30T03:35:30Z")
In case anyone actually is interested in an alarmist’s theory, the June 29 New Yorker features an article titled, ‘The Catastrophist’. It is all about James Hansen (the ‘father of global warming’ according to the article), the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies- his past, his education, his career and successful AGW prediction stretching back 30 years, and then, his alarmist observations. Some quotes from the article: > [@](#): > > Hansen has now concluded… that the threat of global warming is far greater than even he even suspected. Here’s some meant to outline the history of correlation between CO2 levels and temperature: > [@](#): > > In the early Eocene, some fifty million years ago… CO2 levels were high and…the world was very warm: there was practically no ice on the planet, and palm trees grew in the Arctic. > Thirty-four million years ago, temperatures sank low enough that glaciers began to form in the Northern Hemisphere > three million years ago-perhaps earlier- permanent ice sheets had begun to form in the Northern Hemisphere as well. > two million years ago, the world entered a period of recurring glaciations. > During the ice ages-the most recent one ended about twelve thousand years ago- CO2 levels dropped even further. 50 million years of correlation between CO2 and temp isn’t a bad track record, no? And: > [@](#): > > [now] Carbon dioxide is being pumped into the air some ten thousand times faster than natural weathering processes can remove it. > Among the many risks… the ice sheets… will start to disintegrate. Once it begins, this process is likely to be self-reinforcing. > ‘If we burn all the fossil fuels and put all that CO2 into the atmosphere, we will be sending the planet back to the ice-free state…And if you melt all the ice, sea levels will go up two hundred and fifty feet’ Of course the question is what level of CO2 will produce this scenario. People agree that the current 385 ppm (and rising) is already dangerous. What is the catastrophic level? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/128 "2009-06-30T03:58:07Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > 50 million years of correlation between CO2 and temp isn’t a bad track record, no? You’re confusing correlation and causation. Over those 50 million years there was a very strong correlation, but it was because rising temperatures were _followed_ by rising CO2 levels. IOW CO2 increase was caused by temperature increase,not the other way around. And of course the alarmists acknowledge this but then say that this makes the current CO2 increase even more worrying because this time the CO2 increase preceded the temperature rise. You can’t win with an alarmist who is perfectly comfortable that putative cause follows observable effect. ---
**Author:** ![Chief\_Pedant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@Chief\_Pedant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chief_Pedant)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/129 "2009-06-30T04:07:05Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > You don’t get it. You’re just re-asserting the same thing without demonstrating any understanding of, or ability to overcome, the point I make. > > You are not making an observation, you are making an assumption. You are simply dogmatically assuming that the notion has been taken from its core progenitors to a mainstream great cause by psychology when that \*could \*equally as well have occurred as a consequence of a lot of people reviewing the evidence (or trusting correctly those qualified to review the evidence) and coming to a rational fact based conclusion. You’ve presented no evidence or rationale by which you have decided between these possibilities. > > You’ve got nothing, and you’re taking the debate nowhere, and you won’t do so till you get to grips with the science. Remember I am taking no position on AGW itself, so I assume you are referring to the debate about why it is so broadly accepted, and why it has achieved the Great Cause status that it has. You are right that I am making an assumption without formal data. I note that I do get the chance to meet quite a few folks, since I travel for a living. I’ve never met one–well only one, and he’s a relative who is an oceanographer–who can recite the science underlying AGW (he thinks AGW is probably real, with an exaggerated threat). But you are right; I assume that the polloi have not come to a conclusion based on their own analysis or by a rational fact-based conclusion. As to why they trust the sources they do, well that’s part of my observation about the psychologic reasons we embrace Great Causes. The psychologic drive comes first and drives which expert opinions you find persuasive. Let’s post on this again in 5 or 10 years…meantime perhaps you’d be willing to cover my investing bets based on AGW’s broad and continued acceptance. Or perhaps place bets of your own. All those people making fact-based decisions are not likely to be collectively wrong, are they? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/130 "2009-06-30T04:14:44Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > You’re confusing correlation and causation. > > Over those 50 million years there was a very strong correlation, but it was because rising temperatures were _followed_ by rising CO2 levels. IOW CO2 increase was caused by temperature increase,not the other way around. > > And of course the alarmists acknowledge this but then say that this makes the current CO2 increase even more worrying because this time the CO2 increase preceded the temperature rise. > > You can’t win with an alarmist who is perfectly comfortable that putative cause > follows observable effect. That only works by ignoring that CO2 lags and amplifies the warming. > [@](#): > > The greenhouse effect - how increased CO2 causes temperature rise > > When there’s more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth absorbs more heat. Shortwave radiation from the sun passes straight through our atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth. The earth reemits it as longwave (infrared) radiation which is partially absorbed by atmospheric CO2. This is the greenhouse effect. CO2 lets energy in, doesn’t let as much get out. > > CO2 warming explains how the relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age. It begins with the high southern latitudes (eg - Antarctica) warming and releasing CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere, amplifying and spreading the warming to northern latitudes (Cuffey 2001). This is why warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that show tropical temperatures lag southern warming by ~1000 years (Stott 2007). > Climate sensitivity - how CO2 amplifies temperature increase > > Climate sensitivity is defined as how much global temperature increase if we doubled CO2. Studies of past CO2 and temperature records have helped quantify how sensitive our climate is to changes in CO2. > > Temperature and various forcings (including CO2) over the past few centuries shows a climate sensitivity between 1.5 to 6.2°C (Hegerl 2006). One study combines the results from various paleontological studies to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5°C (Annan 2006). Basically, multiple studies covering many different periods of earth’s history confirm that when CO2 is doubled, global temperatures go up around 3°C. > > So what does the CO2 lag tell us? The behaviour of CO2 in the past confirms the amplifying effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sharp temperature rises in the past indicate how sensitive climate is to change. Our past history shows how our climate is prone to “tipping points” where warming can lead to positive feedbacks sparking a warming effect. > > Further reading > > That\*\* CO2 lags and amplifies \*\*temperature was actually predicted in 1990 in a paper The ice-core record: climate sensitivity and future greenhouse warming by Claude Lorius (co-authored by James Hansen): > > ``` > "Changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing" > > ``` > > The paper also notes that orbital changes are one initial cause for ice ages. This was published over a decade before ice core records were accurate enough to confirm a CO2 lag > [@](#): > > Also, gotta love this quote from Deltoid in answer to the CO2 lag argument: See also my forthcoming paper: “Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them”. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/131 "2009-06-30T04:37:55Z")
> [@Chief\_Pedant](#): > > Let’s post on this again in 5 or 10 years…meantime perhaps you’d be willing to cover my investing bets based on AGW’s broad and continued acceptance. Or perhaps place bets of your own. All those people making fact-based decisions are not likely to be collectively wrong, are they? I do thing that we will have plenty of time to adapt to the changes, I even think that some regions of the earth will do better, I do think that we still are not quite there on properly predicting how the change will affect different regions of the earth. What I’m trying to say is that AGW is a phenomenon that has plenty of evidence. Now, can we or should we do something about it? That is IMHO a different issue. I can tell you that there are good arguments and evidence that many efforts of today are not going to make much of a difference and that many terrible predictions could not be as bad as it was thought before, but it seems to me that it is ridiculous to assume that one \*\*has \*\*to discredit AGW to make a good argument against some alarmists that worry about the effects or the results of AGW. ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/132 "2009-06-30T05:12:48Z")
A good reason for a lefty to be dubious on the proposed solutions for AGW is that, most of them are sure to make the poor of the world poorer in the short term and maybe richer in the long term (when most would be dead). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/133 "2009-06-30T05:23:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > A good reason for a lefty to be dubious on the proposed solutions for AGW is that, most of them are sure to make the poor of the world poorer in the short term and maybe richer in the long term (when most would be dead). As opposed to them starving to death in AGW-caused famines ? Or being reduced to refugees by rising sea levels ? Arguments like yours contain the hidden assumption that letting AGW take it’s course has no cost, no downside. You only count the cost for doing something about it. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/134 "2009-06-30T05:37:01Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > A good reason for a lefty to be dubious on the proposed solutions for AGW is that, most of them are sure to make the poor of the world poorer in the short term and maybe richer in the long term (when most would be dead). Really, the main reason that AGW is a lefty issue is because the only real reason to solve it is to save wildlife and impoverished nations. Righties can’t really be bothered to save those two groups. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/135 "2009-06-30T06:02:10Z")
Nah, just a matter of convincing them that world-wide catastrophe would cost them money. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/136 "2009-06-30T07:19:59Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > No, he’s saying that he needs to be able to see things (ie make observations) that match (ie correlate with) what he has been told to expect (ie the predictions) from AGW (ie the the hypothesis) and he won’t be convinced until he can. Now read that again carefully: He won’t be convinced until he can make observations that correlate with the predictions of AGW. > > It would seem that someone here doesn’t fully grasp what a scientific theory is, or how science works, and it ain’t the Aussie. > > Essentially, what you’ve said is that you don’t require actual observations that match the predictions of the hypothesis. He’s saying he won’t believe it until he sees observations which aren’t likely expected during his lifetime. There’s a realistic limitation to his claim. Why not just look at the evidence around us at the moment which is predicted? That’s doable today. Many thousands of scientists are able to do so, why not him? By this logic of until the final result, I suppose I won’t believe that all humans have a heart until such time as every human is examined. After all, it’s not enough that I look at all the examples of humans (all of whom so far have had one) and draw the logical inference that all humans actually do have a heart. Or dogs. Or cats. So, no, he’s not saying that he wants to see evidence as it abounds today. He wants to see what will happen in perhaps a hundred year’s time. In other words, despite the overwhelming evidence which supports the claim he perversely chooses to withhold his provisional consent. That’s his right, but it isn’t smart. Of course, one wonders what happens if scientists devise some method to abate the current situation. Since it’s been stopped, will this person suddenly claim victory by saying that since the end-result never materialized, the entire line of reasoning of theory was thus bunk? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 7:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/137 "2009-06-30T07:26:29Z")
Shit, who cares if somebody gets a neener-neener moment? If all it would take to obviate the threat of global warming would be me eating some shit, well, here’s my spoon, here’s my grin, ready as I’ll ever be… ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/138 "2009-06-30T07:37:46Z")
> [@ashman165](#): > > He’s saying he won’t believe it until he sees observations which aren’t likely expected during his lifetime. Right, that’s good science. > [@](#): > > Why not just look at the evidence around us at the moment which is predicted? Such as? What was predicted that could only be a result of AGW that we can see today? > [@](#): > > By this logic of until the final result, I suppose I won’t believe that all humans have a heart until such time as every human is examined. Nonsense. You are attempting to engage a slothful induction. The prediction of this theory (if anyone felt the need to make it) would be that in any sample size of humans tested all would have a heart. You can define your sample size as 2 or 2, 000, 000, but the theory predicts that all will have a heart. You can go out and start collecting that evidence right now. It’s easily collectable data and if you find any single exception the hypothesis “hat all humans have a heart” will be rejected He can not do any similar evidence collection based on global warming, though he has stated that he desires to, because global warming makes no falsifiable predictions of that type that can be collected within this lifetime. > [@](#): > > So, no, he’s not saying that he wants to see evidence as it abounds today. He wants to see what will happen in perhaps a hundred year’s time. No, he just wants to see evidence that is compatible with AGW and not compatible with a natural explanation. The fact that such evidence can only be collected in 100years time speaks volumes about the scientific strength of AGW. > [@](#): > > Of course, one wonders what happens if scientists devise some method to abate the current situation. Since it’s been stopped, will this person suddenly claim victory by saying that since the end-result never materialized, the entire line of reasoning of theory was thus bunk? Ah yes. Buy my rock, it keeps tigers away. Once again, a slothful induction. If some method of abatement is produced it will presumably be the ultimate falsification attempt. The models all predict, to within 90% confidence according to the IPCC) what the temperature will e at certain CO2 levels. If some method of abatement reverses or halts atmospheric CO2 levels we will see in very short order whether the predictions of the models hold up. If anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline or remain stable and temperature continues to rise I think that should convince everyone. ---
**Author:** ![ashman165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ashman165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ashman165)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/139 "2009-06-30T07:58:01Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Right, that’s good science. Is it really? > [@](#): > > Nonsense. You are attempting to engage a slothful induction. Horse agriculture. > [@](#): > > The prediction of this theory (if anyone felt the need to make it) would be that in any sample size of humans tested all would have a heart. You can define your sample size as 2 or 2, 000, 000, but the theory predicts that all will have a heart. You can go out and start collecting that evidence right now. It’s easily collectable data and if you find any single exception the hypothesis “hat all humans have a heart” will be rejected But a sample size no matter how large (unless, of course, the sample size is exactly the same as the population such that each person in the population is examined) can’t tell you that every human has a heart. It can only fail to reject the null hypothesis, which isn’t accepting it. It essentially means that in the sample examined, no case was found where a human didn’t sometime have a heart. We could sample all people in the world minus one and that still won’t definitively say that the last person in the world will have a heart. While I know that person would, the statistics doesn’t require that it be true. Is this very fundamental idea of probability really that novel? > [@](#): > > He can not do any similar evidence collection based on global warming, though he has stated that he desires to, because global warming makes no falsifiable predictions of that type that can be collected within this lifetime. No, I suppose he can’t. Or, more realistically, he refuses to go out and do the work. Merely because he’s too limited to do it doesn’t mean that others share his inability. > [@](#): > > No, he just wants to see evidence that is compatible with AGW and not compatible with a natural explanation. The fact that such evidence can only be collected in 100years time speaks volumes about the scientific strength of AGW. Not so much. That we know our star will eventually burn out based on the evidence of how stars work isn’t somehow bullshit simply because we won’t be around to see it when it happens. Or do you contend that astronomy is bunk too simply because the distances are far, the speeds are great and we can’t actually get there from here right now to see it with our own eyes? It’s cute that you ask me to list the data that’s been otherwise listed here. How about instead of my copying and pasting in the data, you just learn to scroll up and read. > [@](#): > > If some method of abatement is produced it will presumably be the ultimate falsification attempt. The models all predict, to within 90% confidence according to the IPCC) what the temperature will e at certain CO2 levels. If some method of abatement reverses or halts atmospheric CO2 levels we will see in very short order whether the predictions of the models hold up. If anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline or remain stable and temperature continues to rise I think that should convince everyone. I love your “if” science. How about “if” we dwell in reality and look at what the models say and the data which bear on it? You know, just to take a whack at that science gig. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2009, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156/140 "2009-06-30T08:34:26Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Nah, just a matter of convincing them that world-wide catastrophe would cost them money. It’s going to cost us money either way, and it’s just as likely that we’ll come out ahead as behind. Canada, especially, should love Global Warming. All that territory they have suddenly becomes useful. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/any-other-lefties-dubious-on-agw/501156.md?page=8)