brazil84's Global Warming Thread

[brazil84]

@jshore

Well, then what exactly are you saying?

Ummm, I’m saying exactly what I’m saying. Nothing more, nothing less.

People like to make dramatic predictions. Dramatic predictions have a tendency to end up not coming true.

I don’t know about it in terms of percentages.

Well in that case, I’m not sure that we’re making an apples to apples comparison.

I clearly recall predictions from the 1970s that we were about to enter another ice age. I do not know if these predictions were made by a majority of scientists, or any scientists for that matter.

So if I were to say “they were predicting an ice age back in the 1970s,” your response would be “the majority of scientists weren’t making that prediction.”

Now, I’m pretty confident that in 20 or 30 (or more) years, CO2 levels will be higher than now, but we’ll either see (1) lower temps; (2) temps about the same; or (3) temps higher but not high enough to cause a significant problem for human well-being.

If that comes to pass, you can bet I will be saying “They predicted a global warming catastrophe, and they were wrong.” (If I am still alive, of course.)

And somebody like you will probably respond: “Well, scientists weren’t actually predicting that. It was just Al Gore exaggeration. Besides, the scientists were careful to state that there was some uncertainty in their predictions.”

To me, this is a critical point. If you are not willing to make the claim that some large percentage of scientists are predicting with confidence that if CO2 levels continue to increase, there will be serious negative consequences for human well-being, then there’s not much point in debating this stuff.

If you aren’t willing to risk being wrong, then your claims don’t have a lot of meaning.

[BrainFireBob]

Actually, brazil, anyone referencing the other thread will note that it was your position that did not stand up to questioning, and further, you were quite clear about your inability to understand my points, rendering any claim that you refuted my points frankly laughable.

You’re “tired of the meta-debate” because you’re frankly debating dishonestly, and cannot stand that you have been caught.

[GIGObuster]

@brazil84

Ummm, I’m saying exactly what I’m saying. Nothing more, nothing less.

People like to make dramatic predictions. Dramatic predictions have a tendency to end up not coming true.
Well in that case, I’m not sure that we’re making an apples to apples comparison.

I clearly recall predictions from the 1970s that we were about to enter another ice age. I do not know if these predictions were made by a majority of scientists, or any scientists for that matter.

So if I were to say “they were predicting an ice age back in the 1970s,” your response would be “the majority of scientists weren’t making that prediction.”

Now, I’m pretty confident that in 20 or 30 (or more) years, CO2 levels will be higher than now, but we’ll either see (1) lower temps; (2) temps about the same; or (3) temps higher but not high enough to cause a significant problem for human well-being.

If that comes to pass, you can bet I will be saying “They predicted a global warming catastrophe, and they were wrong.” (If I am still alive, of course.)

And somebody like you will probably respond: “Well, scientists weren’t actually predicting that. It was just Al Gore exaggeration. Besides, the scientists were careful to state that there was some uncertainty in their predictions.”

To me, this is a critical point. If you are not willing to make the claim that some large percentage of scientists are predicting with confidence that if CO2 levels continue to increase, there will be serious negative consequences for human well-being, then there’s not much point in debating this stuff.

If you aren’t willing to risk being wrong, then your claims don’t have a lot of meaning.

I think you are indeed missing the whole point here, as it was shown, it was a minority before that talked about global cooling, they were wrong, right now it is only a minority that claims we should not worry, I will have to say that based on the latest information that they are wrong.

RealClimate: Uncertainty, noise and the art of model-data comparison

The mean of all the 8 year trends is close to the long term trend (0.19ºC/decade), but the standard deviation is almost as large (0.17ºC/decade), implying that a trend would have to be either >0.5ºC/decade or much more negative (< -0.2ºC/decade) for it to obviously fall outside the distribution. Thus comparing short trends has very little power to distinguish between alternate expectations.

So, it should be clear that short term comparisons are misguided, but the reasons why, and what should be done instead, are worth exploring.

These graphs illustrate that the 8-year trends in the UK Met Office data are of course just as noisy as in the GISS data; that 7-year trend lines are of course even noisier than 8-year trend lines; and that things start to stabilise (trends getting statistically robust) when 15-year averaging is used. This illustrates the key point we were trying to make: looking at only 8 years of data is looking primarily at the “noise” of interannual variability rather than at the forced long-term trend. This makes as much sense as analysing the temperature observations from 10-17 April to check whether it really gets warmer during spring.

[GIGObuster]

@BrainFireBob

Actually, brazil, anyone referencing the other thread will note that it was your position that did not stand up to questioning, and further, you were quite clear about your inability to understand my points, rendering any claim that you refuted my points frankly laughable.

You’re “tired of the meta-debate” because you’re frankly debating dishonestly, and cannot stand that you have been caught.

Well, I have to say that it is important to notice that, however it should not be just that, to fight ignorance one has to bring examples and evidence so people who are not aware of the errors the deniers are doing will not be mislead by their “persuasive” inaccurate arguments.

[BrainFireBob]

Oh, granted. But I believe it is also highly important to be aware of intellectual hypocrisy and attempts to derail conversation- this is one of the key parts of education that seems to be overlooked in modern times. Sure, learn how to write an argument- more importantly, learn how to spot a bogus argument, and why it is bogus.

[Enginerd]

@brazil84

Well in that case, I’m not sure that we’re making an apples to apples comparison.

Are you even reading this thread? The 1975 NAS evaluation of '70’s era global climate change predictions has been cited more than once, and including comparisons to the current NAS assessment of global climate change. There’s a concrete comparison of two reports from the National Academy of Sciences covering the same issue, in the academy came to different conclusions.

Are you talking about literal apples? Because figuratively, you’ve got two different apples sitting side by side on your counter.

I clearly recall predictions from the 1970s that we were about to enter another ice age. I do not know if these predictions were made by a majority of scientists, or any scientists for that matter.

The only reason you don’t know this is willful ignorance.

So if I were to say “they were predicting an ice age back in the 1970s,” your response would be “the majority of scientists weren’t making that prediction.”

And that response would be correct, as supported by the NAS report.

Now, I’m pretty confident that in 20 or 30 (or more) years, CO2 levels will be higher than now, but we’ll either see (1) lower temps; (2) temps about the same; or (3) temps higher but not high enough to cause a significant problem for human well-being.

If that comes to pass, you can bet I will be saying “They predicted a global warming catastrophe, and they were wrong.” (If I am still alive, of course.)

Scenario 3 - “temps higher but not high enough to cause a significant problem for human well-being” - fits in completely with the 20-30 year prediction of most GCMs that are used in current research. What you’ll be saying in 20-30 years is as inaccurate as what you’re saying now.

And somebody like you will probably respond: “Well, scientists weren’t actually predicting that. It was just Al Gore exaggeration. Besides, the scientists were careful to state that there was some uncertainty in their predictions.”

Bullshit.

To me, this is a critical point. If you are not willing to make the claim that some large percentage of scientists are predicting with confidence that if CO2 levels continue to increase, there will be serious negative consequences for human well-being, then there’s not much point in debating this stuff.

If you aren’t willing to risk being wrong, then your claims don’t have a lot of meaning.

A large number of credible scientists are making that claim. The claim isn’t limited to a 20-30 year time scale, and it is based on several different sets of assumptions about CO2 emissions, each of which has a different set of predictions attached to it. You’re oversimplifying the situation again.

[jshore]

@brazil84

So if I were to say “they were predicting an ice age back in the 1970s,” your response would be “the majority of scientists weren’t making that prediction.”

Now, I’m pretty confident that in 20 or 30 (or more) years, CO2 levels will be higher than now, but we’ll either see (1) lower temps; (2) temps about the same; or (3) temps higher but not high enough to cause a significant problem for human well-being.

If that comes to pass, you can bet I will be saying “They predicted a global warming catastrophe, and they were wrong.” (If I am still alive, of course.)

And somebody like you will probably respond: “Well, scientists weren’t actually predicting that. It was just Al Gore exaggeration. Besides, the scientists were careful to state that there was some uncertainty in their predictions.”

As Enginerd noted, this is complete and utter poppycock. There are accepted ways of looking at what the scientific community was saying, e.g., by looking as that recent study did at how things broke down in the peer-reviewed literature, by looking at what the National Academy of Sciences had to say, etc., etc. and by any of these standards, there was no consensus on global cooling…Hell, it wasn’t even a majority viewpoint in the peer-reviewed literature and even those papers that did predict it seemed to do so pretty tepidly.

In the current case, AGW is the overwhelming majority viewpoint in the peer-reviewed literature, it is what the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences is saying, it is what all the relevant scientific societies are saying in their policy statements, … There are simply no comparison.

[brazil84]

@BrainFireBob

Actually, brazil, anyone referencing the other thread will note . . .

You’re “tired of the meta-debate” because you’re frankly debating dishonestly, and cannot stand that you have been caught.

Nonsense. You’re just having a hard time accepting that your arguments didn’t stand up to mild questioning.

@GIGOBuster

I think you are indeed missing the whole point here, as it was shown, it was a minority before that talked about global cooling,

Nonsense. You’re the one who has missed the point.

[brazil84]

@Enginerd

Are you even reading this thread?

Yes.

The 1975 NAS evaluation of '70’s era global climate change predictions has been cited more than once,

That’s besides the point.

Scenario 3 - “temps higher but not high enough to cause a significant problem for human well-being” - fits in completely with the 20-30 year prediction of most GCMs that are used in current research.

Umm, I said “20 or 30 (or more) years” (my bolding).

Are you even reading the thread?

A large number of credible scientists are making that claim. The claim isn’t limited to a 20-30 year time scale,

What percentage, and in how many years?

Tell me exactly what is being predicted, please.

[brazil84]

@jshore

As Enginerd noted, this is complete and utter poppycock. There are accepted ways of looking at what the scientific community was saying, e.g., by looking as that recent study did at how things broke down in the peer-reviewed literature, by looking at what the National Academy of Sciences had to say, etc., etc. and by any of these standards, there was no consensus on global cooling…Hell, it wasn’t even a majority viewpoint in the peer-reviewed literature and even those papers that did predict it seemed to do so pretty tepidly.

In the current case, AGW is the overwhelming majority viewpoint in the peer-reviewed literature, it is what the IPCC and the National Academy of Sciences is saying, it is what all the relevant scientific societies are saying in their policy statements, … There are simply no comparison.

Ok, so tell me what the scientific community is saying now. How many years until unmitigated CO2 causes a significant problem for human well-being?

[BrainFireBob]

Nonsense? Why, brazil, I invite you to then answer my questions, and provide me with a question of yours I didn’t answer- because I did in fact answer them.

[Enginerd]

@brazil84

Tell me exactly what is being predicted, please.

Here you go (caution: 18 MB pdf file).

I know that’s not what you think you’re asking for, but it’s the only possible way I can think of to answer your question the way it’s written. Climate science just can’t be simplified into a three paragraph answer to your question.

[brazil84]

@brazil84

Ok, so tell me what the scientific community is saying now. How many years until unmitigated CO2 causes a significant problem for human well-being?

And feel free to give me a range.

[brazil84]

@BrainFireBob

Nonsense? Why, brazil, I invite you to then answer my questions, and provide me with a question of yours I didn’t answer- because I did in fact answer them.

Your arguments didn’t stand up to mild questioning. It’s that simple.

Unfortunately, I’m not gonna re-argue your nonsense in this thread since the likely result will be that this thread gets closed too.

[BrainFireBob]

You can’t calim it didn’t stand up to mild questioning when in fact you admit you didn’t understand much of it, nor can you claim you scored any points in argumentation when your arguments were thoroughly demolished and you had no counter.

Repeated claims that my arguments didn’t stand up to mild questioning, when I had thorough answers, will not alter history. You’re doing nothing but hurting your own credibility, brazil.

[DMC]

@GIGObuster

Well, I have to say that it is important to notice that, however it should not be just that, to fight ignorance one has to bring examples and evidence so people who are not aware of the errors the deniers are doing will not be mislead by their “persuasive” inaccurate arguments.

For the record, I’m not sure that anyone is going to find any of brazil84’s arguments “persuasive” at this point, unless they simply see it as validation for their own unfounded beliefs.

Most of us long ago recognized both his arguments, and even more importantly his debating tactics, for what they are. Nothing more, nothing less. While we usually let jshore and others with similar backgrounds do the heavy lifting, many of us do follow these threads. It used to concern me that brazil84 might tire out those who would rebut him, which I can only assume is his goal, but we’ve now reached the point where even were that to happen, I don’t think anyone would actually read a post of his and say “Oh, that makes sense, I’ll stop listening to the peer-reviewed scientists and instead follow this message board dude.” At this point, I just follow them to watch brazil84 wiggle and squirm, and avoid any questions that he can’t nitpick around. He reminds me of those evolution deniers whose arguments are along the lines of “Well, you might have tons of evidence for evolution, while I have none supporting creationism, but what about Piltdown man? Who’s wrong now?”.

While I certainly can’t speak for everyone on these boards, I’m pretty sure I speak for a large number of people lurking in these threads.

Oh, and Michael Crichton? :rolleyes:

[brazil84]

@Enginerd

Here you go (caution: 18 MB pdf file).

I know that’s not what you think you’re asking for, but it’s the only possible way I can think of to answer your question the way it’s written. Climate science just can’t be simplified into a three paragraph answer to your question.

:shrug:

It’s my understanding that, according to people on your side of the debate, some large percentage of scientists is predicting with a high degree of confidence that if CO2 emissions continue unabated, there will be substantial negative effects on human well being in terms of climate change by the end of this century.

It’s simple enough to describe in just 1 paragraph.

Oh? So you tell me it’s more complicated than that? Too complicated to summarize in a few paragraphs on an internet message board?

Well I call BS. What I described in 1 paragraph is, as far as I know, the very core of the position of people on your side of this debate. If you can’t summarize the core of your position in a few paragraphs, then I’m skeptical that you have any meaningful position.

[brazil84]

@BrainFireBob

Repeated claims that my arguments didn’t stand up to mild questioning, when I had thorough answers, will not alter history. You’re doing nothing but hurting your own credibility, brazil.

:shrug:

The thread speaks for itself.

[BrainFireBob]

The argument may be summarized, but that summary won’t reflect all the details, and will therefore be open to false premise attacks and illusory vulnerabilities that do not exist, but semantically may be made to appear to.

[BrainFireBob]

Why, brazil, we finally agree! I’m glad you conceded, thank you.