How many people take Global Warming totally on faith?

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I looked at it. The “estimate” seems pretty sketchy. For example, it’s apparently average of a bunch of studies. Many (most? all?) of the studies made assumptions about changes in technology. i.e they are wild-ass guesses.
[/quote]

Looking at the reports I have to say you are guessing this is so.

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Many of the studies apparently projected an INCREASE in GDP as a result of CO2 stabilization. Maybe that’s true . . . and maybe my wife will agree to bring another woman into our relationship.

The IPCC “estimate” reminds me of the old Chinese story of how you figure out the length of the Emperor’s nose without actually measuring it. What you do is you poll a few thousand peasants and ask them how long the emperor’s nose is. Then you average all the estimates and voila, you have a precise consensus estimate.

Or as they say in the West, Garbage in, Garbage out.

No, but I wouldn’t buy it 50 years in advance either. I buy insurance once a year. That’s a reasonable balance between caution and overcaution.

I have no flood insurance for my house, which is located 300 feet above sea level. Nor do I have earthquake insurance.

The point is that you can go overboard in caution.

That’s pure speculation. Is it possible that in the year 2107, people will say “Wow, they really should have conserved more oil/gas/coal back in 2007.”? Sure, but it’s also very likely that we have no idea what issues will be important in 2100.
[/QUOTE]

As I’m very experienced in spotting Garbage in, Garbage out. (got my best grades in Catholic school when logic was the subject) We have found already in this thread that you do not understand much of the underlying science. Your last post/point is in relality an argument from personal incredulity. Indeed GIGO.

You need to bring evidence that indeed the estimates are more that just wild-ass guesses, not just because you say so.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Looking at the reports I have to say you are guessing this is so.
[/quote]

Nope. It’s pretty clear from the link, which you apparently have not read carefully. Would you like me to supply a page number and a quote?

We have found already in this thread that you do not understand much of the underlying science.

If the only response you can muster to my arguments is a personal attack, please feel free to post in the Pit forum.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Nope. It’s pretty clear from the link, which you apparently have not read carefully. Would you like me to supply a page number and a quote?

If the only response you can muster to my arguments is a personal attack, please feel free to post in the Pit forum.
[/QUOTE]

You post still remains an argument from personal incredulity. I can not help it that it was named that way in logic.

And it still remains a fact that you never acknowledged that the greenhouse experiment you proposed so strongly was not going to demonstrate anything.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
You post still remains an argument from personal incredulity. I can not help it that it was named that way in logic.
[/quote]

What do you mean by “argument from personal incredulity”?

Do you agree that a prediction based on an economic model that assumes certain advances in technology over the next 30 years is not all that reliable? (Perhaps there’s an exception for certain technologies that have shown steady and continuous advances over a long time period. But there’s nothing in the linked report to justify such an assumption.)

And it still remains a fact that you never acknowledged that the greenhouse experiment you proposed so strongly was not going to demonstrate anything.

Because it would demonstrate something: That the relationship between CO2 and possible warming is not a simple one.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
What do you mean by “argument from personal incredulity”?

Do you agree that a prediction based on an economic model that assumes certain advances in technology over the next 30 years is not all that reliable? (Perhaps there’s an exception for certain technologies that have shown steady and continuous advances over a long time period. But there’s nothing in the linked report to justify such an assumption.)
[/quote]

The argument that there is “nothing in the linked report to justify such an assumption” is precisely the element of personal incredulity. As this thread has demonstrated, it is clear you can not be trusted on judging evidence. If you mentioned that something seems sketchy you need to bring forward what it was so then it can be discussed. Just saying “because I say so” does not cut it.

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Because it would demonstrate something: That the relationship between CO2 and possible warming is not a simple one.
[/QUOTE]

:rolleyes:

That was the point of me and tagos, but this demonstrates too that you need to be careful on what you are saying, otherwise you are indeed just doing an argument ad nauseum, argumenting just for argumenting’s sake when in reality you did not understand even what was the point.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
The argument that there is “nothing in the linked report to justify such an assumption” is precisely the element of personal incredulity.
[/quote]

Ahhh, well in that case you would appear to be arguing from personal credulity.

Anyway, is your answer to my question yes or no?

As this thread has demonstrated, it is clear you can not be trusted on judging evidence.

Again, if all you can muster is a personal attack, please take it elsewhere.

If you mentioned that something seems sketchy you need to bring forward what it was so then it can be discussed. Just saying “because I say so” does not cut it.

And I explained exactly why I thought the estimate was sketchy.

That was the point of me and tagos, but this demonstrates too that you need to be careful on what you are saying, otherwise you are indeed just doing an argument ad nauseum, argumenting just for argumenting’s sake when in reality you did not understand even what was the point.

Yes or no: There were posts in the thread that implied or suggested that the relationship between CO2 and warming is a simple one.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Ahhh, well in that case you would appear to be arguing from personal credulity.

Anyway, is your answer to my question yes or no?
[/quote]

Not going to play that game, you need to bring the evidence that it is just “a wild ass guess.”

Again, if all you can muster is a personal attack, please take it elsewhere.

Will not work either because it is important to point out when one is not discussing in good faith:

[QUOTE=brazil84]
And I explained exactly why I thought the estimate was sketchy.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=brazil84, earlier]
I looked at it. The “estimate” seems pretty sketchy. For example, it’s apparently average of a bunch of studies. **Many (most? all?) ** of the studies made assumptions about changes in technology. i.e they are wild-ass guesses.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, that is just affirming that something is so.

@brazil84

Yes or no: There were posts in the thread that implied or suggested that the relationship between CO2 and warming is a simple one.

Not my point, and it depends on the setting if the relationship between CO2 and warming is a simple one anyhow.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Not going to play that game, you need to bring the evidence that it is just “a wild ass guess.”
[/quote]

I suppose I could find a list of failed technology predictions.

But the thing is, you don’t deny that an economic model based on technology predictions over the next 30 years is unreliable. Given that you haven’t denied it, I’m not going to waste my time finding examples to support such an obvious claim.

Nope, that is just affirming that something is so.

So you seriously think that claiming an economic prediction is unreliable because it is based on predictions about technology is basically the same as claiming the economic prediction is unreliable because one says so?

Not my point,

Sure, and perhaps my posts on the greenhouse experiment were not addressed to you.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I suppose I could find a list of failed technology predictions.

But the thing is, you don’t deny that an economic model based on technology predictions over the next 30 years is unreliable. Given that you haven’t denied it, I’m not going to waste my time finding examples to support such an obvious claim.
[/quote]

Here in nutshell is proof of what I’m saying, we need relevant evidence that what the studies you dismissed as a “wild ass guess” are so. You are admitting that the only way to counteract this will be by bringing examples that are not related.

Sure, forgive us for demanding evidence to doubt on this specific subject.

So you seriously think that claiming an economic prediction is unreliable because it is based on predictions about technology is basically the same as claiming the economic prediction is unreliable because one says so?

Nope, you need to explain why it is so, I demand a relevant example, when the studies referred by **jshore ** are published by experts in the field, claiming that they are a “wild ass guess” is indeed a point that requires relevant evidence against it.

Sure, and perhaps my posts on the greenhouse experiment were not addressed to you.

Still, it was a misleading effort based on the context of the thread.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
Here in nutshell is proof of what I’m saying, we need relevant evidence that what the studies you dismissed as a “wild ass guess” are so. You are admitting that the only way to counteract this will be by bringing examples that are not related.
[/quote]

Of course they are related. I am saying that assumptions about future technologies make a prediction unreliable. Push it out far enough, and it’s a wild-ass guess.

So obviously examples of failed predictions are relevant.

The joke of it all is that you don’t even deny my claim.

I suspect that you know perfectly well that it’s true.

Sure, forgive us for demanding evidence to doubt on this specific subject.

I’m happy to give evidence if you deny my claim, which you don’t.

I’ll ask you again: Do you or do you not agree that an economic model based on predictions about technology is generally unreliable?

Nope, you need to explain why it is so, I demand a relevant example,

What evidence would convince you that those predictions are unreliable, wild-ass guesses?

Still, it was a misleading effort based on the context of the thread.

Which of my posts would you say is “misleading”?

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]

Sure, and perhaps my posts on the greenhouse experiment were not addressed to you.
[/QUOTE]

I did go back and I have add a :rolleyes: to my reply.

You did reply to tagos’s post #216

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8909183&postcount=216

With #219,

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8909336&postcount=219

By your own admission here, I have to say that indeed you had no way to counteract his point other than using the simplistic points of others, and the kicker was that then you offered that exchange as evidence of illogical positions from the ones that think there is evidence for AGW. That was really putting up a straw man, kicking it down and declaring victory by insisting that the experiment “actually puts the [AGW] hypothesis at risk” and therefore that is why scientists will not do it. :rolleyes:

Indeed, **tagos ** did not present the point that it was simple, just to point out that the experiment you proposed indeed would not put the hypothesis at risk, and that it was a lousy one.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Of course they are related. I am saying that assumptions about future technologies make a prediction unreliable. Push it out far enough, and it’s a wild-ass guess.

So obviously examples of failed predictions are relevant.

The joke of it all is that you don’t even deny my claim.

I suspect that you know perfectly well that it’s true.
[/quote]

The implication here is that the new technologies that deal with the issue of GW are not available, that is not what I see.

I’m happy to give evidence if you deny my claim, which you don’t.

I’ll ask you again: Do you or do you not agree that an economic model based on predictions about technology is generally unreliable?

Still waiting…

For the relevant evidence, I have the impression you are still assuming the predictions are based on technology that are not developed yet, when the focus is with already available technology that can be implemented.

What evidence would convince you that those predictions are unreliable, wild-ass guesses?

I’m still waiting…

Which of my posts would you say is “misleading”?

And I did predict that.

See the previous post.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
The implication here is that the new technologies that deal with the issue of GW are not available, that is not what I see.

[/QUOTE]

Just to clarify where that came from:

Form the paper quoted by jshore:

The range of stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades. This assumes that appropriate and effective incentives are in place for development, acquisition, deployment and diffusion of technologies and for addressing related barriers (high agreement, much evidence).

So clearly this is dealing with technology that is available. And the paper does acknowledge that there needs to be an incentive for this to take place, as I see it, there is evidence that the incentive is and will be there. So no, not a wild ass guess at all.

This study only deals indirectly with the OP’s point of GW being an item proposed totally on faith. Yet it does have items that once again show the overall point of the OP remains a false one. This is just a proposal on what to do regarding the evidence at hand, the failure of this proposal hinges on the incentives not being there, not much evidence that that is the case or that that we as citizens should not ask for changes so as to then be part of the incentive.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
I did go back and I have add a :rolleyes: to my reply.

You did reply to tagos’s post #216

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8909183&postcount=216

With #219,

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=8909336&postcount=219

[/quote]

Sure, and my post no way contradict what I just said.

How exactly was my post “misleading”? Or is it just misleading “because you say so”?

By your own admission here, I have to say that indeed you had no way to counteract his point other than using the simplistic points of others,

You conveniently omit Post 213, which shows the context of my post. I was responding to a simplistic analogy with a simple experiment.

Indeed, **tagos ** did not present the point that it was simple, just to point out that the experiment you proposed indeed would not put the hypothesis at risk, and that it was a lousy one.

But if you read post 213, you would see that I was not so claiming. But if it makes you feel better to attack straw men, I can’t stop you.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
The implication here is that the new technologies that deal with the issue of GW are not available, that is not what I see.
[/quote]

Cite? Or is it just because you say so?

And you still haven’t answered my very simple question.

Still waiting…

For the relevant evidence,

You can wait as long as you like. If you aren’t disputing my claim, I’m not going to waste time looking for evidence to support it.

I have the impression you are still assuming the predictions are based on technology that are not developed yet, when the focus is with already available technology that can be implemented.

Cite? Or is it just your “say so”?

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Sure, and my post no way contradict what I just said.

How exactly was my post “misleading”? Or is it just misleading “because you say so”?
[/quote]

No, you did **say so ** later:

@brazil84

So use big terraria. The word “small” does not appear in my post.

If building terraria the size of aircraft hangars would let humanity resolve the AGW issue once and for all, it would surely be worth it.

[QUOTE=brazil84]
You conveniently omit Post 213, which shows the context of my post. I was responding to a simplistic analogy with a simple experiment.
[/quote]

Nope, you then did go on #221 to post what I did quote above.

[QUOTE=brazil84]
But if you read post 213, you would see that I was not so claiming. But if it makes you feel better to attack straw men, I can’t stop you.
[/QUOTE]

Nope, you did show later that you really did not understood that the experiment would not put the theory in danger, if you insist that was just for the few ones insisting in simple experiments, it was therefore a straw man point since no serious researcher had mentioned the CO2 effects were simple to show.

It is you that can not stop everyone else from seeing that you are not doing this on good faith.

[brazil84]

And here are a couple quotes from Page 16 of the linked document:

Studies that assume the possibility that climate change policy induces enhanced technological change also give lower costs. However, this may require higher upfront investment in order to achieve costs reductions thereafter

Although most models show GDP losses, some show GDP gains because they assume that baselines are non-optimal and mitigation policies improve market efficiencies, or they assume that more technological change may be induced by mitigation policies.

Sorry, but if you aren’t skeptical of these projections, you’re living in fantasyland.

And of course, this is all assuming that these studies are being accurately characterized. I would love to take a look at these studies. I have a feeling that they have all manner of sketchy assumptions.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
Cite? Or is it just because you say so?

And you still haven’t answered my very simple question.

You can wait as long as you like. If you aren’t disputing my claim, I’m not going to waste time looking for evidence to support it.

Cite? Or is it just your “say so”?
[/QUOTE]

It does not work that way, contradicting a paper with “it is just a wild guess” means that you need to bring evidence that that is so. Claiming now that you are not going to bring it is just tap dancing, and an admission that you had no evidence to support what you said.

[GIGObuster]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
And here are a couple quotes from Page 16 of the linked document:

Sorry, but if you aren’t skeptical of these projections, you’re living in fantasyland.

And of course, this is all assuming that these studies are being accurately characterized. I would love to take a look at these studies. I have a feeling that they have all manner of sketchy assumptions.
[/QUOTE]

Argument from ignorance.

We still need evidence they indeed are sketchy in the protections.

[brazil84]

[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
No, you did **say so ** later:
[/quote]

I don’t understand your point. But it appears that you have shifted ground and given up on your claim about what I have or haven’t acknowledged.

Claiming now that you are not going to bring it is just tap dancing, and an admission that you had no evidence to support what you said.

No it’s not. Why should I provide more evidence if you don’t even dispute my claim?