The problem is, I’d never heard an expert lay out falsification criteria for global warming before I came here; I asked GIGO because he was here, and he supplied answer after answer. Had experts been here, I would have asked them.
All apologies if I gave the wrong impression: GIGO moved his own goalpost, repeatedly; tom hasn’t, AFAIK, set up a goalpost. That said, (a) my goal is the truth, but (b) absent an expert, the best I can do in that regard is request falsification criteria hereabouts, and point out whether the relevant facts come to pass at each named goalpost.
I agree entirely. I merely add that they don’t often make a big deal about what that “possible temperature data set” is – instead merely saying that the latest evidence doesn’t suffice to falsify it, without quickly adding mention of what would suffice – to the point where you can’t state it, and where I had no reason not to take GIGO seriously when he offered up the first couple of criteria.
The problem is really just an Argument ad nauseous, really, just go back to watching paint dry, we already know that you agree we have to do something so let’s stick to the OP and leave the unlikely falsification to the future.
But you DO have and expert. In fact you have several thousand of them: 97% of climate scientists. Getting back to the original debate why do you argue with people on the message board in Great Debates rather than seeing it as a GQ question and accepting the answer (yes global warming exists) presented by the experts.
And that is because other experts confirmed that it is possible to do good work with few station on some regions, besides this is no longer the case and more recent sources still show the current warming.
Trenberg is not a denier, now who is having reading comprehension problems? BTW Tremberg has been misquoted or taken out of context by deniers before so I really do not see mush of anything useful there in your quote, we will have to see the whole context as previous examples leave much to be desired, in the end Trenberg agrees with the issue and has produced studies to support it. That one can find something contradictory in all his writings is not very impressive when in the end he agrees that AGW is a problem.
I think the problem is there is no intelligent discussion on the issue. If you are a climate-change denier then everything you present is dismissed out of hand. When teaching my students about causation vs correlation, I showed the graphs from “An Inconvienent Truth” that shows that CO2 levels lag behind temperature. I then asked the class if according to the graphs we could say CO2 levels cause temperature change, temperature change caused CO2 levels or neither but there was a correlation. Of course some in the class started talking about AGW and completely discounted the “evidence” I was presenting. Some (AGW proponants) ignored that according to the graphs GW occured before urbanization and others GW proponants ignored that according to the graphs, CO2 does not affect temperature.
I put this scientific debate in the same category as those that believe cold fusion is not currently a field worthy of study. GW proponants may be and probably are correct but it cannot be ignored that they tend to shut down debate. I’m sure that if I were to put forth a theory that the Pioneer Effect involves the probe stretching the luminiferous aether, there would be a more reasoned debate than if I were a GW or AGW denier.
Because that’s pretty much all I keep hearing from the experts: “yes, global warming exists.” I hear them get asked whether recent low temperatures disprove global warming, I hear them say “no,” and I – don’t then hear them follow up with a quick “but the following would.”
As I’ve said before, they talk like astrologers rather than astronomers: blithely asserting that what we’re seeing doesn’t prove 'em wrong, not going on to mention what would. I therefore disregarded them entirely before getting an answer hereabouts; were it not for debates with the good folks on the SDMB, I may still have never yet come across a falsifiable prediction about the stuff.
Once I heard a falsifiable prediction about the stuff, I (a) started keeping track of whether it comes to pass, and (b) found myself agreeing with recommendations like those in the aforementioned link. But, as per the OP, merely hearing “neither X nor Y nor Z disproves it” carries no weight with me absent a quick “but A or B or C would.”
Why is this no longer the case? Are there new long-term sources?
Am I denying the current warming? Am I denying the last 100-year warming? (BTW, the answers are no and no)
I’m sure that you can find one station that would mimic the last century’s warming and that wouldn’t mean you can forget about the rest.
They produce no material evidence as to why one source is enough, they simply justify their weights and averages as mathematical models.
Mathematical models are good, by the way, but when you stretch them ou need more than pure math. You could pick one guy who voted for Obama in 08, Bush in 04 and 00, and Clinton in 96 and 96 and that wouldn’t mean you don’t need to hold elections and simply ask the guy who he’s gonna vote for.
Of course Tremberg isn’t a skeptic, that’s my point. If one of the “good” guys says (my bolding)
“*In fact there are **no predictions by IPCC **at all. And there never have been. The **IPCC instead proffers “what if” **projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.”
"Even if there were, the projections are based on model results that provide differences of the future climate relative to that today. None **of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state *and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models."
…then you can’t accuse him of being paid by BP.
I’m sure he has been misquoted, is he misquoted here? Can you point to it?
Or is it you tired “I can’t see anyhing important” when he says models aren’t predictions and in many cases bear no relationship to the observed reality?
Who in this thread has said AGW isn’t a problem? You keep fighting imaginary deniers and not the posters on the thread.
But the reality is that what you brought there has been explained before many times, it is in reality the efforts of the deniers that convince many that there is a problem.
As mentioned, they do not rely on models alone, Tremberg knows that global warming is unequivocally happening. The problem has been calculating properly where the heat is going to, so then we can be better prepared for the changes that will take place.
So now it’s where the heat is going?? Possibly but that, again, is not even remotely the point. Which, by the way, is models as predictors, not where the heat is going. That is not mentioned in my quote to which you are answering.
At least you show consistency in your tactic of goalpost-moving to avoid debating.
I’ll repeat. Who in this thread has said AGW isn’t a problem?
So you know already it is, but all the efforts so far are precisely geared to seed doubts and inaction. (virtually all the cites on the previous discussion you produced were) As mentioned before, it is the inconsistency what it makes the position you push a joke.
If it **is **a problem, it is really ridiculous to continue to seed doubts were there are less actually after so many years of research.
The effort I see from many here is to bring a false open mindedness to the problem. As science Historian Naomi Oreskes points out:
And this gets us back to the OP, this is the current state of affairs, the effort is afoot to convince the public that there is a raging controversy, not only on the basic stuff, but as Saint Cad showed, many are not aware or told that many other advanced points were already explained and they are not the show stopper they assume were told about.
It is really very bad when many do not see that they are being played when they bring reheated points whose purpose is to foment inaction as “we have to wait longer as item x is not certain” ignoring that the most certain problems coming already tell us that we have to act now. What we need to be aware is that there are very powerful interests that are making us ignore the most certain aspects of this.
I like it how you always start with lots of “debate-winning” links and end up retreating to little more than name-calling. It took you to post 93 to accept that nobody has said AGW isn’t a problem, so now you can stop arguing against people who said it (cuz there ain’t none in this thread). “Many are not aware”, I am not part of the “many”, so don’t address the “many” in a reply to me as your main point.
It is a problem, it is a problem, it is a problem…
“Seeding doubt”, as you put it, is your way of saying “accept not only the strictly scientific analysis (not an unreasonable idea, I disagree but it’s not unreasonable) but also all the political, social, and economic remedies proposed and shut up”. Science is never about telling people to “shut up, discussion over”. Political, social, and economic discussion belong in the public square; unless you think we already have unimpeachable and infallible philosopher-kings and we commoners must be grateful for their wisdom.
I never said “we have to wait longer as item x is not certain”, especially if you take it to mean “I won’t belive the dam has structural problems until it breaks”.
When AGW stop meaning that poor people in my country have to continue cooking with llama dung because natural gas produces more CO2* or maybe we shouldn’t give electricity because that may also produce more CO2 then the debate stops being a scientific one. And, yeah, maybe this will mean that they will not have water in 90 years instead of not having water in 110 years**, but, at least I, cannot tell people “go on, keep living in one-week-after-the-neolithic-revolution levels so that your great-grandchildren will suffer a bit less, maybe”.
The scientific debate I can lose, and lose badly, I don’t care; particualrly on anonymous message boards with anonymous people; it’s simply a mental-masturbation exercise.
The how-do-we-make-people’s-lives-better-with-the-money-we-have debate I’ll fight tooth and nail. When people get acces to water, vaccination, micronutrients, education, full human and civil rights AS WELL AS looking for ways to minimise ecological damage, bring it on, where do I fucking sign the petition, what bloody park do we occupy.
AGW is not the first, second, third, or fourth (and maybe more) more important problem of humanity for the next 5 decades. It is important, we have to study it, we have to minimise its problems, we have to maximise the benefits a warmer climate might possibly have, we have to get better studies, better understanding, real solutions that don’t depend on crony capitalism and goverments funding sexy eco-project that do little actual benefit.
You have to understand this: We will (unless super-completely-awesome-incredible-you-wouldn’t-accept-it-in-a-sci-fi-series technology appears) **never ** go back to pre-industrial levels of CO2, we will **never **go back to 2000 CO2 levels, we will **never **go back to 2010 CO2 levels without increasing poverty and human suffering.
An example, not a real-life scientific consideration
** The numbers are invented and not intended to be more that visual aids.
Strawman, the most recommended solution do not propose that, it clearly shows where are you coming from, still from the same sources that you trusted before.
Just one quick comment on this accusation, I make my responses on posters like you based on recent past history, it is really disingenuous to pretend that you were not bringing denialist baloney by the boatload just a few weeks ago. And even over here my point stands; the evidence shows that even when people like you will admit that there is a problem, at the same time they once again bring ideas from sources that, besides minimizing the problem, have an agenda. (The disputed points you mentioned were almost all in reality with little to dispute and seen before from popular denialist sources; hence, the posts are still seeding unnecessary doubt and that is the overall point of many denialists)
Can you point in this thread where a brought denialist baloney? Or is anyone who says something that you disagree with in the AGW debate bringing denialist baloney by definition?
Doesn’t everyone have an agenda?
Didn’t say it was a problem?
Is it minimising to say there are bigger problems?
Can you point to the specific disputed points?
Even if every source I get is from a denialist knuckle-dragging source, is it an ad hominen to simply dismiss them from where they come rather than content?
Nice escape from talking about real people and their problems.
Why do you debate at all if ou can’t win with science and always end up with “it’s a denier”?
Your g point of “The gigantic ammount of corrections to the actual observations.” is a boiler plate denialist point.
When the contrarian’s agenda is to allow some to get higher profits and then deny any responsibility, citizens then have to be the responsible and tell them no. As it is also the idea that we should not do anything due to short term economical reasons.
Nope, as I check the content before it is dismissed, the biggest problem is that many times they were already dismissed and explained many times before, you have to learn the not so difficult task to check if any item you bring was not dealt with before.
Why can you not deal with what Naomi Oreskes said? The issue here is that contrarians are still pressing conspiracy theories, the evidence says that there are no conspiracies from the part of the scientists, but there are many on the open efforts to create AstroTurf sites and movements that benefit and get aid from the poluters. (CO2 science.org was one of them, and used by you before. (and yes, I found how they misrepresented the science before I dismissed them))
BTW, the “The gigantic ammount of corrections to the actual observations.” debunked point is based on climate gate, it seems it does not matter that several scientific and government investigations and reviews like BEST are done, the **myth **that data was changed or corrected on purpose to show warming still persist.
And yet, none of your responses prior to this one actually seem to address this issue, so why bother posting to this thread when you do not even care about the topic of the thread?
This point seems to be worthy of discussion, but posting a lot of “losing” debate points that you identify as masturbatory ad infinitum/ad nauseam to a different topic looks a lot like threadshitting.
Why not address the points about which you feel strongly in their own thread rather than waiting until a thread has over 90 posts to admit that you are simply hijacking a different thread because you don’t like some of the social ramificstions, (that you failed to even mention until the end)?
Do you mean it isn’t true? Aren’t there many corrections (many/most scientifically necessary) done to actual observations?
One agains, you come to the point of “other guys say it”, I don’t care. “Other guys” are not in the thread.
When did I mention “higher profits”?
When did I say “not do anything due to short term economical reasons”?
Most interestingly, you didn’t actually answer the question so I’ll ask it again: Doesn’t everyone have an agenda?
Oh, please, not another skepticalscience link. Can you at least mention the salient points of the link. I’m too old to be getting lots of reading homework.
You may check them, but your answer always comes back to “it’s a denialist place” + skepticalsicence link, rather than “the levels of Oxygen18 in the andean sample from the 17th centuty didn’t rise 23%, they simply rose 8%” and then link
Since it’s the first time you mention Ms. Oreskes it is evident that I did not deal with that. I’ll check it.
Did I mention conspiracies?
How did CO2science misrepresent science? Do you have an example? I like the site so it’ll be interesting to see if they are not telling the truth.
I didn’t base it on Climategate and have used the argument before it.
I don’t think there has to be any nefarious activities and, consequently, never have mentioned malice. My point is that there in great uncertainty in the ammount that each factor need to be corrected and in some cases even the sigh of the correction and when corrections (which, as I’ve mentioned before, are necessary in many/most cases) end up being some much more than the original signal, the mathematician/statistician in me needs to be comforted.
First of all I have to mention that I am extremely baffled by your moderating me (but since that’s an ATMB thing I’ll stop now.
Since the OP asked for, basically, why one is skeptic, I mentioned that on post 48 (my first):
I have no idea what you are talking about. On my very first post I mention that people are more important but since I was answring an OP about why I am a skeptic I tried first to make the physical/mathematical points rahter than the social/political one, and, sorry, I feel free to make the points I want if they pertain to the topic, i.e. that my scepticism to AGW has a scientific point but also a scepticism of the solutions proposed.
On my second post (#57) I responded (with evidence) to the incorrect statement that B. Lomborg no longer believed that point I was making, i.e. that access to water is more important than fighting GW.
On my third post (#61) I make the point again. Ditto on my fourth post (#80)
On my fifth (#87) I make the point indirectly by saying that AGW is also a problem. Ditto for my sixth (#92).
And on my seventh (#94) i make the point even bigger.
If your point is that I didn’t mention that CO2 level will no go down before, it is an incredibly complicated rule of moderation that you have to mention all your point in the first post.
Unless answering the points my opponent make, giving information and opinion is wrong because attacking AGW is wrong on the SDMB.