Martin Cothran joins in the denialfest on the news that the level of snow melt is at a 30-year low.
Both from the terminology and from a small bit of research at a couple of sites, including NASA, the snow melt in any given year seems to be how much the difference in the snow cover over the previous years. Any snow melt is a sign of warmer temperatures. So, saying that this was a year of smaller gains in temperatures than we have seen for a while doesn't really change the message that the warming is going on.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
225 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 225 of 225One Brow said: "The denialist is one who, lacking evidence for their position, relies on tactics, misinterpretations of evidence, selective quoting, taking small anaomalies out of proportion, and any other method to achieve the desired conclusion."
Based on your posts in this thread, Eric, you seem to be callin yourself a denialist, eh?
For what it's worth, Eric, given your evidence-free claims about the aburdity of positing that temperature change leads to an increase/decrease of CO2 levels, and your unfathomable apparent attempt to argue that temperature changes follow CO2 levels, this (pro-warming) scientist appears to disagree with you on both counts (is he a DENIALIST, I wonder?).
"In making the argument that CO2 is causing global warming, I tend not to talk about this long-time-scale correlation. As you can see from this post, while the correlation looks simple, the causality is more complicated than one might initially think...Many advocates use this as evidence that our emissions of CO2 will warm the Earth. Skeptics point out that the CO2 rise actually followed the temperature changes, questioning the direction of the correlation."
"CO2 indeed lags the initial warming. However, that does not mean it's not playing a crucial role in the warming...What most scientists think happens is that the orbital variations cause a small initial warming. This small initial warming leads to CO2 being released, which then leads to further warming....there are other problems -- e.g., we do not know with great confidence exactly what mechanism causes CO2 rise in response to the slight orbital-caused warming."
http://www.grist.org/article/the-co2-temperature-correlation/
The old "most scientists think" refrain, followed by the usual "we do not know with great confidence" disclaimer," eh? That's cool, though, only DENIALISTS try to pretend that the known facts are not indubitable.
This same guy seems to disagree with those who claim that earth-sun relationships need not be considered, and that we can be "sure" of the reliability of models which ignore such factors:
"There is clear and unambiguous evidence that ice ages are initiated by small variations in the earth's orbit. This includes changes in the eccentricity of the orbit, changes in the tilt, and the day of year of closest approach to the sun."
He then links to this wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycle
That article elaborates on a whole host of cyclical changes involving the earth's position relative to the sun, while noting a number of problems generated by the theory.
Still indubitable, though, I say.
Again, Eric, the more I look into this issue, the more I am convinced that the beliefs of anyone who would routinely dismiss any doubt as the creation of lying DENIALISTS, the more I am convinced that their convictions are definitely NOT based on "science."
The whole attitude is decidedly anti-scientiifc from the outset, and bears most of the earmarks of an ideological or quasi-religious "faith." As I have said before, one disturbing thing about it is that the faithful adamantly insist that their beliefs are based on objective, indubitable science. Why can't they just admit the true basis (whatever it is) of their unshakable faith. Why the bogus pretense to reliance on "science?"
One Brow said: "Based on your posts in this thread, Eric, you seem to be callin yourself a denialist, eh?"
You might see this as just some smartass closing shot, Eric, but I'm serious and sincere. I don't expect you to agree, but a large percentage of your responses to issues raised by posts seem to merely attack the messenger, laugh derisively, quibble over some alleged, insignificant "error," and to then implicitly dismiss everything raised by that person as presumably erronous and unreliable, etc.
One specific example is where your only response to the a claim, which included the mention of of an 800 year lag, which addressed (the only REAL point), the implications for the direction of correlation, was to "attack" the 800 year figure as not contained in another article.
In fact, virtually every source of information I can find, including devoutedly "pro-warming" ones, acknowldge an 800-1000 year lag. Many suggest this is predictable and expected. Apparently you were not previously aware of any of them (or were you?). Why your sole emphasis on an alleged mistake (which is not a mistake, from what I can tell)? This seems to fit right in with your most recent account of what "denialism" is, as do many portions of your other posts in this thread.
Yet another denialist, eh?
"Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.
Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more....
These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales...
In some fields the science is indeed "settled"....But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
---R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.
http://www.workablepeace.org/Climate/Sunspots.htm
Given your response to the issues raised by the video of the guy you called a "crank," I gather that these are precisely the types of scientific arguments that you do not bother to even read, Eric, since they are obviously merely lies propagated by DENIALISTS.
Eric, the implicit premise underlying many of your comments seems to be, as usual, that "unless and until we are conclusively proven wrong, it must be presumed that we are absolutely (indubitably) right." Isn't this the kinda "tactic" which you impute to DENIALISTS who question the claims of the AGW advocates?
One Brow said: "Using activism to express your concern doesn't change whether the concern is well-founded or not."
Would this same observation also apply to "activists" who dispute the "concerns" of the alarmist? If so, what's the point of sayin it? Does your observation establish the indubitability of the claims the pro-warmin crowd which the DENIALISTS deny?
===
One Brow said: "Being disputed does not stop it from being a fact. Not all disputes are from legitimate complaints."
Of course it doesn't. Would this assertion also apply to the disputes AGW advocates initiat in response to the claims of the AGW DENIALISTS? If so, how does it support the claims of Hansen, Singer, or any other particular disputant?
====
One Brow said: "Even if the science has validity, that doesn't mean it's being used in a valid way."
Goes without sayin, don't it? Would this insightful analysis also apply to the claims of the warming alarmists? If so, why do you conclude that disagreement with them constitutes "denialism?" The presumption seems to be that any "invalid" use of science is confined to your opponents, dont' it? Either way, sayin a particular view "could" be wrong hardly supports any claim that the opposing view is therefore right, which is what this kinda seems to try to insinuate.
====
Overall, much of your response to scientific objections and arguments advanced by those who do not agree with the alarmists is to the effect that such arguments have not been "proven." The conclusions you seem to insinuate from this includes: (1) If an objection it not "certain" then it surely cannot undermine the indubitibility of a contrary claim, and (2) if the alleged indubitability of a claim has not been conclusively demonstrated, then it must remain "indubitable," as it is asserted to be by its advocates.
Isn't this the kinda position a denialist would take?
Faith?
"It takes only a 1% change in global average cloud cover to cause substantial climate change, either warming or cooling. Assuming that cloud cover remains the same is part of the climate modelers’ worldview in which nature was in balance before humans came along and upset that balance. But there is no way to support this worldview with data…it is a matter of faith.
But there’s an interesting consequence of this assumption that the climate system has always been in balance: The assumption ends up leading to a tautology – a process of circular reasoning – regarding the role of mankind in climate change. Let me explain...
...since they don’t have the data to determine whether there are natural sources of climate change, they simply ASSUME it does not happen. This makes the theory of manmade global warming to large extent a matter of faith. From talking to a few of them, I think that many of these researchers are not even aware they have made this implicit assumption.
All of the IPCC climate models now produce a sensitive climate system, which amplifies the small amount of warming from the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a sufficient amount to explain most, if not all, of the warming we have seen in the last 50 years. But do you see what has happened here? By ignoring natural, chaotic fluctuations in clouds, researchers have come to the (mistaken) conclusion that there is no need to look for clouds as a cause of climate change. They ended up concluding only what they had assumed to begin with!
But I will admit that circular reasoning has one advantage: It always results in a self-consistent explanation."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/04/circular-reasoning-in-the-theory-of-manmade-global-warming/
He's sayin they first assume that there are no natural forces which could explain the current warming, and then somehow also conclude that that there are no natural forces which could explain the current warming. That they assume the contributions of man provide the primary explanation, and then conclude that the contributions of man are the sole explanation?
"All of the IPCC climate models now produce a sensitive climate system, which amplifies the small amount of warming from the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by a sufficient amount to explain most, if not all, of the warming we have seen in the last 50 years."
So they "amplify" a small amount of warming until it is sufficient to explain most or all of the warming in the last 50 years?
Well, I guess I now have a better understanding of how some feel so cocksure in announcing that their conclusions are "indubitable." I mean, like, who would doubt that red is red, or that cats are cats, ya know?
I once had a guy assure me that the odds of a given thing happening were, like, 2 outta 3. To prove his argument, he plugged his assumptions into a computer simulation program and told me to run it, over and over. He assured me that repeated sets of 10,000 trials would all be very close to 66.66%.
From there on, he wouldn't listen to a word I said, he just told me to run the computer simulation program over and over if I had any lingering doubts.
He was right about the simulation results, but unfortunately he was wrong about the assumptions it was based on. Go figure, eh?
I couldn't tellya if that computer situation was
1. Accurate, but imprecise,
2. Precise, but inaccurate,
3. Both precise and accurate, or
4. Neither precise nor accurate.
But I can tellya this...it was CONSISTENT, sho nuff.
I also know that when I suggested that the simulation was irrelevant to the question, because it merely regurgitated tautological instructions dictated to it by erroneous assumptions, I was patiently treated to indulgent explanations of how useful computer simulations are.
It's true, I suppose, that, if you regard them as "evidence," they demonstrate and prove your assumptions and are useful for the purpose of such "proof." This can be especially useful if you want to present indubitable proof to someone who is likely to accept it as such. But Fred Singer says models are not reality and are not evidence. He could have a point, I spoze
"Instead of the currently popular practice of building immensely complex and expensive climate models and then making only simple comparisons to satellite data, I have done just the opposite: Examine the satellite data in great detail, and then build the simplest model that can explain the observed behavior of the climate system.
The resulting picture that emerges is of an IN-sensitive climate system, dominated by negative feedback. And it appears that the reason why most climate models are instead VERY sensitive is due to the illusion of a sensitive climate system that can arise when one is not careful about the physical interpretation of how clouds operate in terms of cause and effect (forcing and feedback)....
The allure of models is strong: they are clean, with well-defined equations and mathematical precision. Observations of the real climate system are dirty, incomplete, and prone to measurement error. Unfortunately, as Richard Lindzen at MIT has pointed out, the fact that modelers use the term “model validation” rather than “model testing” belies their inherent preference of theory over observations."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/
Hmmm, kinda reminscient of the "fundamental split" between those who believe in models, and those who believe in atmospheric data, which Singer also talked about, eh?
Back in medieval times, when it was generally assumed that the way to resolve questions was by resorting to "right reason," verbal and written debates would go on for weeks, months, and even years.
One guy, for example, might speculate that, because they sleep standing up, with their knees locked, have a high center of gravity, etc., one guy could easily tip over an 800 lb cow if he snuck up on it while it was sleepin.
Then some guy would respond that, by all known mathematics associated with fulcrum, levers, etc., this would be impossible. Let the debates begin!
What they would never do, however, was go out and try to tip a cow. Dirty work, that, ya know?
"The main arguments for global warming being manmade go something like this: “What else COULD it be? After all, we know that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are sufficient to explain recent warming, so what’s the point of looking for any other cause?...The IPCC has simply ASSUMED that these natural fluctuations in weather patterns do not cause climate change. But all it would take is a small change in global average (or Northern Hemispheric average) cloudiness to cause global warming. Unfortunately, our global observations of cloudiness have not been complete or accurate enough to document such a change…until recently.
As Joe D’Aleo, Don Easterbrook, and others have pointed out for years, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has experienced phase shifts that have coincidently been associated with the major periods of warming and cooling in the 20th Century...
[Bottom line}: A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earth’s radiative budget associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century – including three-quarters of the warming trend. A mostly-natural source of global warming is also consistent with mounting observational evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than the IPCC’s climate models simulate."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/
Probably impossible, I spoze, but, still .... I guess ya can always wonder, if you're stupid enough to entertain doubts about the indubitable. Dangerous bidnizz, that, though, because now ya done proved yourself to be a criminally insane DENIALIST.
I was once charged with breaking and entering, assault and battery, and other stuff that I forgit now. The cops claimed they had my fingerprints from the scene. I KNEW that was impossible (I wore gloves, ya know)?
But what am I gunna do? They got their expert witnesses and I aint knowin nuthin bout that kinda stuff. Then I ran into a guy who used to work for the FBI (we were both tryin to break into the same place one night). He knew all about that kinda stuff. He looked at their evidence for me, and said their conclusions could easily be refuted in a court of law!
I asked if he would tesitfy at my trial. He said sure, but he would need an expert witness fee. He destroyed their expert, I tellya. Them wasn't my prints, and no one could doubt it, at least not without some further "evidence."
Well, turns out, the further "evidence" came at the close of the trial, when the DA was arguing to the jury. He pointed out that I had a personal interest in hiring someone who would dispute his evidence, and that my expert (whose credentials were impeccable) had an incentive to lie about the science because I was paying him.
My attorney was just some cheap-ass Public Defender. He pointed out that the prosecution's witnesses got a weekly salary too. He didn't convince nobody of nuthin, though, because everyone knows that cops and state employees never lie.
I think I done 3-5 on that one, I forget now.
Would it be possible, I wonder, that global warming alarmist use "denialist" tactics to further their agenda?
"After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized....
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin....
found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin....
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns....I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4."
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
To answer the question: I don't think so! Homey don't play dat. I think the only real question here is how big the bribe this Landsea guy took was, and who gave it. It also seems obvious that he is using some kinda alias. Land-sea? Yeah, right, eh?
This guy, he ROCKS, eh!?:
"Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, and since greenhouse gases warm the lower atmosphere, more CO2 can be expected, at least theoretically, to result in some level of warming.
But skillful storytelling has elevated the danger from a theoretical one to one of near-certainty. The actual scientific basis for the plausible hypothesis that humans could be responsible for most recent warming is contained in the cautious scientific language of many scientific papers.
Unfortunately, most of the uncertainties and caveats are then minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This Summary was clearly meant to instill maximum alarm from a minimum amount of direct evidence.
Just as the tales of marauding colonies of alligators living in New York City sewers are based upon some kernel of truth, so too is the science behind anthropogenic global warming. But there is a big difference between reports of people finding pet alligators that have escaped their owners, versus city workers having their limbs torn off by roving colonies of subterranean monsters.
Too often the consensus is implied to be that global warming is so serious that we must do something now in the form of public policy to avert global catastrophe. What? You don’t believe that there are alligators in New York City sewer system? How can you be so unconcerned about the welfare of city workers that have to risk their lives by going down there every day? What are you, some kind of Holocaust-denying, Neanderthal flat-Earther?
It is a peculiar development that scientific truth is now decided through voting. A relatively recent survey of climate scientists who do climate research found that 97.4% agreed that humans have a “significant” effect on climate. But the way the survey question was phrased borders on meaninglessness. To a scientist, “significant” often means non-zero....If the consensus is that the presence of humans on Earth has some influence on the climate system, then I would have to even include myself in that consensus. But too often the consensus is some vague, fill-in-the-blank, implied assumption where the definition of “climate change” includes the phrase “humans are evil”. The survey results would have been quite different if the question was, “Do you believe that natural cycles in the climate system have been sufficiently researched to exclude them as a potential cause of most of our recent warming?”
If you present these people with evidence that the global warming crisis might well be a false alarm, you are rewarded with hostility and insults, rather than expressions of relief....I say “most” because I once encountered a true believer who said he hoped my research into the possibility that climate change is mostly natural will eventually be proved correct."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
More from the Spence, eh?:
"The IPCC’s pundits like to claim that the published evidence for humanity causing warming greatly outweighs any published evidence against it. This appeal to majority opinion on their part is pretty selective, though. They had no trouble discarding hundreds of research papers supporting evidence for the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age when they so uncritically embraced the infamous “Hockey Stick” reconstructions of past temperature change.
Despite a wide variety of previous temperature proxies gathered from around the world (see figure below) that so clearly showed that centuries with global warming and cooling are the rule, not the exception, the Hockey Stick was mostly based upon some cherry-picked tree rings combined with the assumption that significant warming is a uniquely modern phenomenon. As such, they rejected the prevailing “scientific consensus” in favor of a minority view that supported their desired outcome. I suspect that they do not even recognize their own hypocrisy....
After all, climate change does happen, right? So why not claim that ALL climate change is now the result of human activity? And while we are at it, let’s re-write climate history so that we get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice age, with a new ingenious hockey stick-shaped reconstruction of past temperatures that makes it look like climate never changed until the 20th Century? How cool would that be?
The IPCC thought it was way cool…until it was debunked, after which it was quietly downgraded in the IPCC reports from the poster child for anthropogenic global warming, to one possible interpretation of past climate.
...it is also a good bet that 100% of those scientists surveyed were funded by the government only after they submitted research proposals which implicitly or explicitly stated they believed in anthropogenic global warming to begin with. If you submit a research proposal to look for alternative explanations for global warming (say, natural climate cycles), it is virtually guaranteed you will not get funded. Is it any wonder that scientists who are required to accept the current scientific orthodoxy in order to receive continued funding, then later agree with that orthodoxy when surveyed?
In my experience, the public has the mistaken impression that a lot of climate research has gone into the search for alternative explanations for warming. They are astounded when I tell them that virtually no research has been performed into the possibility that warming is just part of a natural cycle generated within the climate system itself."
Does this DENIALIST really expect anyone to believe that NPR refuses to interview any scientist who does not declare that global warming is caused solely by man?
"I am a geologist and geophysicist. I have a bachelor’s degree in geology from Indiana University, and a Ph.D in geophysics from the University of Utah. My field of specialization in geophysics is temperature and heat flow. In recent years, I have turned my studies to the history and philosophy of science. In 1995, I published a short paper in the academic journal Science. In that study, I reviewed how borehole temperature data recorded a warming of about one degree Celsius in North America over the last 100 to 150 years. The week the article appeared, I was contacted by a reporter for National Public Radio. He offered to interview me, but only if I would state that the warming was due to human activity. When I refused to do so, he hung up on me....
I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”
Would anyone, other than another DENIALIST, actually believe that any "major researcher in the area of climate change" would have a preconceived agenda to "get rid of" commonly acknowledged scientific information?
I don't think so! Homey don't play dat! The damn DENIALISTS, them!
"Nevertheless, despite the publication of Huang et al’s findings in 1997...the next year, Nature published the first Mann hockey stick paper, commonly called “MBH98"...The hockey stick was the only paleoclimate reconstruction shown in the Summary, and was the only one in the whole report to be singled out for repeated presentation....As soon as the IPCC Report came out, the hockey stick version of climate history became canonical. Suddenly it was the “consensus” view, and for the next few years it seemed that anyone publicly questioning the result was in for a ferocious reception."
Well, what, other than a "ferocious reception" does a damn DENIALIST expect to git, I ax ya?
http://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2008/12/25/horse-hockey-climate-scientology-%e2%80%9cgetting-rid%e2%80%9d-of-the-medieval-warming-period/
If anyone was stupid enough to actually listen to these DENIALISTS, he might start to supsect that honest, objective, dedicated scienists (i.e., those sounding the AGW alarm) were propagating nonsense based on cherry-pickin.
I'll ax again--where is today's Joe McCarthy? These criminally insane people need to be purged from all governmental employment and silenced before they poison the minds of an unsuspecting public.
I've HAD it, I tellya! Although I normally acknowledge that I don't have the expertise to arbitrate scientific claims, it is now essential that I pick a side and fervently defend it by any and all means available. Henceforth, I will feriously attack any anti-AGW DENIALIST with any and all means available.
And don't think that just because I aint got no scientific expertise I aint got no "means," neither. I can, and will, simply invariably attack their integrity, their sanity, and expose their "huge crimes against humanity." That oughta learn em, eh!?
I wuz arguin with a skinhead today. He wuz tellin me how jews and blacks are genetically criminal, preverted, etc., and should all be exterminated. I questioned his evidence, the propriety of his "remedy," even if his evidence was correct, and so on.
Yet he remained adamant that he was right, and I was wrong. To kinda smooth things out, I finally just stole one of your lines, Eric, and tried to end the whole discussion. I said: "To me, it seems like you are determined to read as much as possible in what one side says and as little as possible in the other side, you probably see me the same way. So, while this seems to be the most important acspect of the discussion, I guess we'll just have to attribute it to normal human biases."
He wouldn't accept that. He said: *Normal* human biases, aint? Quit kiddin yourself, eh? Your bias aint normal. It's abnormal and totally unjustified. You have been brainwashed."
So, I just walked away. As I did, he repeatedly shouted "DENIALIST" at the top of his lungs. So did all his homeboys. It kinda upset me. I am now questioning my own objectivity, integrity, common sense, and sanity.
One Brow said: "To me, it seems like you are determined to read as much as possible in what one side says and as little as possible in the other side, you probably see me the same way.... I guess we'll just have to attribute it to normal human biases."
Eric, can't you see that I don't have to take, or read anything into, one side or the other to disagree with your position? You put yourself in the indefensible position of claiming that one side (yours) is indubitable and that any disagreement about that is irrational "denialim."
All I have to believe is that there is, or could be, some scientific merit to opposing claims and that the issue has not been indubitably settled in favor of one side or the other. It's like you spotting me 199 points in a contest to see who can be the first to correctly guess 200 coin flips.
As Spencer noted, the claimed "consensus," even if modestly stated when directly questioned, is really a claim of consensus about the conclusions drawn from a long chain of of inferential (and possibly, as Spenser claims, circular) reasoning that is quite disputable. I think you demonstrate Spenser's observation rather well when he says: "If the consensus is that the presence of humans on Earth has some influence on the climate system, then I would have to even include myself in that consensus. But too often the consensus is some vague, fill-in-the-blank, implied assumption...."
Once pressed, you start by saying that the claimed "consensus," that cannot be doubted, is merely that: "With regard to this particular issue, it's that human industrial output is having a long-term effect on global temperatures." Indeed, nobody disputes this "consensus," if taken at face value, i.e., if all that is meant by "effect" is that industrial output is not totally and utterly insignificant and without any influence whatsoever on temperature.
But apparently that's not what is implicitly meant, at least not by you, because as soon as you say it, you are callin some guy a denialist because he doesn't agree that CO2 levels are virtually the sole cause of all global warming over the last 100 years.
In response I asked: "This is totally incoherent to me, Eric. Even assuming that Roger Schafly made a strict claim about causation, (I don't think he did), and even assuming there is some proof that the opposite is true, and that rising C02 levels CAUSE all temperature increases (I have never seen any such proof), how is he denying that CO2 levels are one factor which affect climate change (or climate stability, for that matter)?
In what way is he a DENIALIST in the sense I set forth?"
You finally say: "In that one post, Schlafly was talking about that one graph. He has many other posts as well, and AFAICT always reaches the same conclusion that the evidence is not good enough. Considering every major scientific body says otherwise, I find it enough to so label him."
Although you don't specify what this guy claims the evidence is not "good enough" for, it seems apparent that you have moved past the initial claim that he refuses to acknowledge that greenhouse gases can "affect" temperature. Even when you were trying to pretend that you were confining his alleged "denialism" to that simple proposition, you were in fact suggesting that he was a denialist because he did not share your view of the causative role of CO2 in the warming period under discussion. Your complaint is that he says, among other things:
"This suggests that the temperature increases is causing the CO2 increase, and not the other way around. It doesn't give any evidence at all that the recent warming was caused by CO2 or humans."
If you indeed to intend to confine your claim of "consensus" to the simple proposition you first stated, then there are virtually no "denialists" because virtually no one denys it. Yet you see a "pure denialism" and, indeed," a full-blown "denialfest" in the most innocuous observations of fact, such as made by Cothran.
Zup wit dat?
I mean, like, even if I was a staunch, extremely partisan Republican, I would feel compelled to utterly reject the following claim:
All Republican always tell the truth, and never commit any logical fallacies, whereas all Democrats always lie, and always resort to fallacious reasoning."
Only the most extreme of extremists would believe this. The implicit premise seems to be that no one could even be a Democrat unless they were inherently and invariably dishonest and illogical, because the whole platform is inherently dishonest and illogical. Unfortunately, many on both sides act as though this is true (of their opponents, not themselves, of course).
Nothing is so self-evident and indisputable as are the necessary implications of one's apriori assumptions. What is never so "indisputable" is the soundness of those assumptions, without regard to the their necessary implications.
Post a Comment