Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare by Niki2

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

But it's not data based on what's happened. It's based on data the computer thinks has happened. Big difference. The first one is real. The second is, well, imaginary.

That's also a perfect description of free-market capitalism. :)

Yes, that was a snark. It's also 100% accurate, and serves as yet another example of the politicization of data to get a desired result in order to push a preconceived notion in support of a particular agenda.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I mean sustainable.

Except that it aint sustainable and that's the whole point.

I said, "good" ecology. You said, what does "good" mean. I said, "sustainable." So what do you mean that ecology is not sustainable, and that is the whole point?

There are plenty of sustainable ecologies in the world.

If you want to define capitalism so narrowly as only the practices that are entirely unsustainable, always predatory, and always short-sighted, it is your right.

Just please note that others might have a different, broader definition.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
That's also a perfect description of free-market capitalism. :)

Yes, that was a snark. It's also 100% accurate, and serves as yet another example of the politicization of data to get a desired result in order to push a preconceived notion in support of a particular agenda.

Oh yeah, I'm with you there.

Science (data) and politics don't mix. As soon as you politicize science, you get tons of imaginary data. So I agree. As I am a big fan of scientific rigor, this is a pet peeve of mine. Legislating based on "science" and you'll have to put "science" in quotation marks.

Legislate on principles, on values. Do you support the principle that it is not government's job to control businesses like they are wild animals that have to be chained, locked up, and only let out for circus performances? Or do you support the principle that government is the voice of the collective and should be able to use force to punish violations of the people's wishes?

Data has nothing to do with it.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm not saying businesses can't be ethical or conservation minded, it's just that to date, that has not been the case with a large number of corporations.

I agree. Corporations have had a detestable track record. But corporations do not equal capitalism. It is only one expression of capitalism, one that I consider to be "bad" (both morally and financially, unsustainable without the use of force).

Quote:
I'm not against capitalism per se, either, but unlike you, I don't believe that it is tolerable to have a system modelled on the dog eat dog of the natural world, and that some checks and balances - which would include limiting the kind of pollutants that they could produce.

My model is not about the acceptability of predation in the wild. It is about everything having a life cycle, from infancy to maturity to death, that has natural checks and balances from other members of the ecology that makes the entire system sustainable.

These checks and balances would limit the kind of pollutants businesses can produce, without the use of force.

Again, I am not against limiting pollutants. I am against the use of force to limit pollutants.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 5:12 AM

FREMDFIRMA

There's also consumer backlash, two cases in point.

You don't see many products with Aspartame in em any more cause folks quit buyin em once they realized how toxic that shit is.

I think HFCS is kinda goin the same way, and I was pleased as punch to see REAL maple syrup on store shelves again as a direct response to consumer demand for it.

While I don't buy into "Free Markets" and "Captalism" cause damn near *every* time I hear them words it's just a front for Italian Fascist Economic policies and protected monopolies - nor do those folks ever take into account Labor as a commodity folks can hold out for a higher price...
(just ask any "Free Market" jackass what they think of the IWW!)

Not buying thier shit *does* work as an incentive.

Me, I don't argue the nitpicks, I run on two basic principles of that debate.

Do not trash your living space.
Waste not, want not.

Holding those two principles in hand makes the whole bloody debate pointless.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 5:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Do not trash your living space.

But they are saying, what if Bad Business trashes YOUR living space? Why not put a gun to their head and force them to clean it it up?

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 6:30 AM

http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/saving-america-from-corporate-statism/

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

No, as opposed to looking at the data and how they obtained the data, from the official publications and websites of said "qualified people who have worked and studied in the field."

That's what scientists do. They go to the source.

CTS, have you tried "going to the source" yourself? Because there is plenty of well-documented data out there supported climate change. It's a little shocking to find an intelligent, curious person who hasn't seen it.

You said somewhere up the thread that you "would just like to see some compelling evidence based on real measurements (you know, like with a thermometer) and not just data constructed (and possibly invented?) by computer models."

This shows a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of climate change: thermometer data is damned near worthless. We have been taking reliable measurements of temperature for really only century or so, and that's with limited spatial sampling.

First problem: climate change happens over 1000's of years. The temperature trend in the past 100 years could be meaningful or meaningless, since nature is just chock full of cyclic behavior over different time scales. We won't have direct observations of the "climate change" time scale until it's way way too late to do anything about it.

Second problem: there is a very real but rarely addressed question of which temperature measurements matter. Climate change will likely cause hotter temperatures in one place, colder in others. So if I hand you temperature data for every major city in the world, how would you crunch it down and make sense of it? Could you even draw a conclusion without knowing the temperature, let's say, out in the middle of the Pacific? Or over all points in Antarctica?

(BTW: A failing of some climate change scientists is the attention they pay to this. It's very hard to get them to explain exactly which thermometer measurements they use in their averaging methods, or what those averaging methods are, or why they chose to use them. I think they just squash the numbers together, get a pretty hockey stick graph, and go with it. Yet another reason I do not trust thermometer temperature data.)

So you see: direct temperature measurements are woefully inadequate for predicting climate change. The data we need would be data that indicates the condition of the world as a whole over a long, long time scale. The best example of this kind of useful data comes from ice cores.

I won't get into the scientific details (though they're cool - pun NOT intended) because you can learn the low down elsewhere (try wikipedia for a start), but scientists get very reliable estimates of global average temperature, atmospheric CO2, and atmospheric methane for the past several ice age cycles from ice cores. This data has been compared to data from tree rings and geological evidence and is quite solid.

What we see is a history of climate variation that closely follows variations in earth's orbit. BTW - the "earth's orbit" info comes from the computer modeling that you seem so eager to dismiss. See, the thing is, results from computer modeling are not taken to be meaningful unless they pass the test of relating to reality. That's science 101, and any scientist who doesn't carry out this sort of test will never get published in a peer reviewed journal.

In this case, modeled orbital patterns line up very well with earth's ice ages:

So you can say that that the "solar radiation" curve on this plot should be thrown out because it was "computer invented", but the fact that it lines up so well with methane levels measured from ice cores means that you'd be making a mistake.

So, anyhow, the key thing I get out of the orbital cycle/climate variation correlation is that earth's interglacial periods have been pretty similar for at least the last 4 ice age cycles. (That's about 400,000 years) But the current warm period is quite different. I have plots to illustrate exactly what I mean, and references to the scientists who did the work, but not on this computer. I'll post them when I get a chance.

But here's the thing:

That only factor that's new during this interglacial period - the last 20,000 years - is humans, agriculture, and industry. The presence of humans is almost without doubt the factor causing these climate changes. The only thing to be arguing is how exactly it's happening and what effect it will have.

I'll be back later with those plots. But you can start looking for yourself: what's happening on the far right of the plot I posted? Every single other time solar radiation drops, what does the methane do? But not this time...

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 7:16 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 8:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Do not trash your living space.

But they are saying, what if Bad Business trashes YOUR living space? Why not put a gun to their head and force them to clean it it up?

Well, YEAH. I mean, it's a great idea to think that because capitalism is so goddam great that the invisible hand of the market will preclude anyone from ever doing harm to others in the chase for short-term profits, but unfortunately for the rest of us, we live in the REAL world, and the Tooth Fairy ain't hiring. So if being nice to people doesn't stop the corporation from polluting your lake in the first place, why would anyone think that being nice would push them into cleaning it up in the second place? It's easier and more profitable to just trash the place, take the profits, declare "bankruptcy", and walk away, leaving the poor dopes who were stupid enough to give you tax abatements to clean up your mess, as always.

You can SAY that's not the way it should be, but you absolutely can't change it being that way WITHOUT THE FORCE OF LAW AND REGULATION BEHIND YOU. You can claim all day long that that's not the way it SHOULD be, or the way you WANT it to be, but that's the way it IS, and that's the reality we have to deal with. People don't act in ways that do them the most good; more often than not, they act in ways that cause them the least money and the least work. The Big Mac doesn't sell because it's fine cuisine; it sells because it's gullet-filler you can throw down your throat for under five bucks, and won't generally kill you too quickly.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 10:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
CTS, have you tried "going to the source" yourself? Because there is plenty of well-documented data out there supported climate change. It's a little shocking to find an intelligent, curious person who hasn't seen it.

Of course, I went to the source myself. Who else would go to the source for me?

That is a bit like saying, "Have you tried thinking for yourself?"

Yeah. Yeah, I have. That's the problem. If I let all these experts think for me, I'd be humming along with everyone else on the global warming joyride.

Quote:
This shows a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of climate change: thermometer data is damned near worthless. We have been taking reliable measurements of temperature for really only century or so, and that's with limited spatial sampling.

I agree. But reliable measurements of temperature, even with limited spatial sampling, is at least, REAL data. It doesn't give us much to go on, to be sure, but slow data streams doesn't mean you get to start substituting imaginary data and pretend they're real, just cause you got tired of waiting, and you want to publish *now*.

I'll save you some time. I have looked into this. I already know all this stuff you're telling me. You're talking down to me like just because I disagree, I must be a newbie to this issue and embarassingly ignorant of the research--"try wikipedia for a start." No, I've read the research, and I find the conclusions are not supported by the data.

Quote:
I think they just squash the numbers together, get a pretty hockey stick graph, and go with it.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
This site explains what they do with the real temperatures. Scroll down to "If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?"

In short, they use the real data they got, and they guess for the data they don't, they stick them all in a computer model, which spits out a 30 year average called a climatology, which "hopefully represents" the real world.

I understand having fun with a SIM Climate program, and being excited that all your guesses must be on the right track because they match up with someone else's guesses for temperature proxies (be it tree ring or ice core or whatever). I get that. Woohoo!

It's still all speculation that has to be interpreted very cautiously. Because all's said and done, you're still matching imaginary data with imaginary data. In fields of speculative science, you have to be very careful to distinguish hypothesis from fact. The qualifier, "We think, but we're far from being sure,..." should precede every conclusion. The word "solid" definitely doesn't belong in there.

I'm not saying the imaginary data should be thrown out. I don't have a problem with using computer modeling. By means, use it. Hypothesize, study, correlate... But don't forget your data sources--they are still all imaginary.

Here's another thing about imaginary data. You can imagine them to be whatever you want, based on your modeling parameters. So you want a very very close correlation to methane proxies? Program that SIM just right, and you got it. See? THAT's the problem with imaginary data. It depends on who is imagining it.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I agree. But reliable measurements of temperature, even with limited spatial sampling, is at least, REAL data.

Huh. I'm not sure what you're after. You said you want to see thermometer temperature data, but you already know that it's useless.

Quote:
I'll save you some time.

You really shouldn't. Did you read the rest of my post? It appears you didn't, because I flat out said that any of these recent time studies are not what makes the strongest argument. It's the temperature data from hundreds of thousands of years ago that tell the story.

These data do not come from thermometers, but they are data nonetheless. They show climate temperature fluctuations better than any model can.

Quote:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/abs_temp.html
This site explains what they do with the real temperatures. Scroll down to "If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created ?"

This is not very detailed information. A colleague of mine has tried contacting these people to see their exact data and the algorithms they use is these SIMs, and it is nearly impossible to get a detailed science-based answer out of them.

They really are just squishing the numbers together and running with it. They pretty much admit it themselves on that page - "To measure SAT [surface air temperature] we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted."

This is not science-based computer modeling. It is number crunching, and you're right to doubt it. I do too - I think it's complete baseless to make long term predictions based on modern temperature readings. It's just bad science.

Did you read the rest of my post? Because the real computer modeling I'm talking about, and the data that tells a convincing story, has nothing to do with the last decade.

I'll compose a separate post about that.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 12:22 PM

Most of this info comes from Ruddiman's book: Plows, Plagues and Petroleum. Very interesting read. I've posted about it before. It's the first climate change science I've encountered that really looks like science. Well, most of it. He does hand wave a bit. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html

First the data: this figure I got from wikipedia.

The top three plots are CO2, temperature and CH4 from Vostok ice cores. The bottom curve is solar radiation from computer models of orbital variations. The peaks in the top three curves are warm interglacial periods, and they happen when solar radiation in the northern hemisphere is at a high.

The thing that was new to me when I saw this is that earth is most often in an ice age. Melts like the one we're in now happen every ~100,000 years and last about 10,000-20,000 years. Then when the radiation goes down, you get almost immediate drops in temperature drops, CO2, and CH4, and the glaciers come back.

But not this time around.

Yep, looks like something happened 8,000 years ago that changed the natural CO2 trend, and something happened 5,000 years ago to change the CH4. Hmm... Ruddiman asks: how about land clearing for agriculture, then irrigation for rice farming? CO2 comes from releasing bond carbon, CH4 comes from rotting vegetation. It's not a slam-dunk, but it's pretty damned striking coincidence.

Looks like humans have been fucking with the climate for a long long time, and its having an effect. At this point of the previous cycles, glaciers were spreading across Baffin Island in Canada, not melting faster and faster. Not that I mind that one too much,

but who knows what the accelerated carbon levels from the past few hundred years will do. If agriculture delayed an ice age, what in the hell will industrialization do?

Ruddiman's Theory:

And no, this shit won't be happening tomorrow. Likely, it'll take several centuries to really do it's thing, so why should we care, right? The sad thing: I think it'll be slower to happen than most forecast, but it'll also be more extreme and slower to right itself. Things will really, really be different in 1,000 years because of what we're doing now.

I do realize I've hijacked a bit. Sorry. Will get back to economics now, but I just to show that there is science behind CC. Pretty compelling, I have to say.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 1:22 PM

Quote:

In short, they use the real data they got, and they guess for the data they don't, they stick them all in a computer model, which spits out a 30 year average called a climatology, which "hopefully represents" the real world.

I understand having fun with a SIM Climate program, and being excited that all your guesses must be on the right track because they match up with someone else's guesses for temperature proxies (be it tree ring or ice core or whatever). I get that. Woohoo!

Again, this methodology holds true for just about ANY scientific endeavor. A hypothesis is not a fact; it's a guess which "hopefully represents" the real world, which has to be tested. At some point, you have to guess a bit, try to predict data based on what you already have, and see if it holds true.

It's starting to sound like you're simply looking for any kind of reason to dismiss something you've already made up your mind to dismiss.

By the way, basing the entirety of your knowledge only on what is already known is a pretty poor plan, don'tchya think? I mean, it would never move you forward at all, would it?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:50 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

I said, "good" ecology. You said, what does "good" mean. I said, "sustainable." So what do you mean that ecology is not sustainable, and that is the whole point?

There are plenty of sustainable ecologies in the world.

I was speaking in short cuts. I found it interesting that you used the term 'sustainable' to denote pure capitalism, when the term sustainable is so abhorrent to many free marketeers. Sustainable is not what the current system we have is...that's why you have scientists, lobbyists and others trying to create some change. That was the point. Dare I say, I found it ironic?

I thought I gave a sufficient explanation of why the your description of the organic nature of capitalism is not such a desirable one, because I at least would like to see as system that wasn't purely based on predators and prey. I'd like to see human misery not factored in as a part of a system just because that's what works best.

Quote:
If you want to define capitalism so narrowly as only the practices that are entirely unsustainable, always predatory, and always short-sighted, it is your right.

Just please note that others might have a different, broader definition.

I prefaced my earlier comments by saying that capitalism had its benefits and strengths. It also has its short falls, like any system. I think it tends towards being focused on short term goals, and can be predatory unless tempered by boundaries and limits.

I get that some might see it in a much more myopic manner as being a force for pure good, but I think I'm a bit more realistic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:04 PM

Quote:

My model is not about the acceptability of predation in the wild. It is about everything having a life cycle, from infancy to maturity to death, that has natural checks and balances from other members of the ecology that makes the entire system sustainable.

These checks and balances would limit the kind of pollutants businesses can produce, without the use of force.

Again, I am not against limiting pollutants. I am against the use of force to limit pollutants.

Ummmm... you were saying something about using imaginary data... ?

You realize that virtually every single thing you've said about "good" capitalism is based entirely on IMAGINARY data, imaginary happenings in some fantastical imaginary world, where apparently humans don't exist and all the shops are owned and run by the Do-Gooder Fairy.

Sorry, but I can't take your positions any more seriously than you seem to take climate change.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 3:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's starting to sound like you're simply looking for any kind of reason to dismiss something you've already made up your mind to dismiss.

Bingo. I mean, CTS wants temperature data, even though she (she?) very well knows that it's useless.

I could be wrong. CTS is generally pretty sharp. I'm looking forward to seeing what she says about Ruddiman's theories.

As for economics: did CTS really say that the oil industry is inventing climate change because sequestration plans burn more oil? Really? CTS - please explain this. I worked in the petroleum geophysics field for 13 years and never heard about that.

What seems plainer is that accepting climate change means putting some pretty serious limits on industry. Not just cars: the bigger culprits are power plants and factories and such. If they suddenly had to invest in being cleaner, it would seriously hurt their bottom line.

And as for the petroleum industry: the frikking AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists - supposedly a respected scientific organization) gave an award to Micheal Crichton for his PURELY FICTIONAL criticism of climate change.

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists takes a broader view. It is presenting its annual journalism award this year to Michael Crichton, the science fiction writer whose latest book, "State of Fear," dismisses global warming as a largely imaginary threat embraced by malignant scientists for their own ends.

"It is fiction," conceded Larry Nation, communications director for the association. "But it has the absolute ring of truth."

That is not the way leading climate scientists see it. When the book was published in 2004, climate experts condemned it as dangerously divorced from reality. Most of these scientists believe human activity, chiefly the burning of fossil fuels, is changing the atmosphere's chemistry in ways that threaten unpredictable, potentially damaging effects.

The book is "demonstrably garbage," Stephen H. Schneider, a Stanford climatologist, said in an interview yesterday. Petroleum geologists may like it, he said, but only because "they are ideologically connected to their product, which fills up the gas tanks of Hummers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/national/09prize.html

Oil is against climate change. Big time. I'm shocked that any thinking person can convince themselves differently.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Sorry. Will get back to economics now, but I just to show that there is science behind CC.

I did read your posts in their entirety, and I apologize I did not express myself clearly enough to show it.

In my view, it's like this. There is science, and there is "science." Real science, good science, makes observations, tests hypotheses in experimentation, measures data, and calculates statistical probabilities that the measured data reflects the influence of the independent variable rather than random fluctuations. Then they retest it, and so forth. This is the scientific method.

Not every field allows for this kind of experimentation and data measurement. So other fields do the best they can, taking measurements, calculating correlations, look for patterns. In recent years, they have had the benefit of computer modeling as an added tool. Strictly speaking, none of these fields do rigorous science, since there is no experimentation to test hypotheses. However, they still carry the label of a "science" because they dutifully carry out the first steps of the scientific method the best they can--observation and hypothesis.

I like to call disciplines that engage in experimentation "science," and disciplines limited to observation and hypotheses, "quasi-science."

Much of the social and behavioral sciences, medicine, paleontology, paleogeology, and climate studies are quasi-sciences. They cannot engage in experimentation and lack the most critical tool of the scientific method.

So quasi-sciences deal more with speculation, data proxies, correlation, and other similar artifacts. This doesn't mean their work is not important or should be dismissed. It means without experimentation, their quasi-science needs to be interpreted very, very cautiously and tentatively--with the understanding that at the bottom of it, it is mostly guesswork.

You can post all the graphs you want about what researchers THINK happened 10,000 or 100,000 years ago. But at the end of the day, they don't have any PROOF--they just have SUPPORT. There is a big difference. Ice core proxies for CO2 and CH4 and temperature can never take the place of REAL data measurements for those variables, which we don't have and will never have. We can guess that global warming is what is happening, based on our best models and proxies and other stand-in data. But when all is said and done, none of it is proven with REAL data--it is still a guess, at best.

I do not have a problem with the hypothesis of global warming. I have a problem calling it a theory, and I certainly have a problem calling it a fact.

I hope that clarifies that I am not out to dismiss anything. I just require data quality to correspond to level of certainty and confidence. I don't see the empirical data required to support the level of certainty claimed by GW proponents. No more, no less.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

-- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 24, 2010 4:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Bingo. I mean, CTS wants temperature data, even though she (she?) very well knows that it's useless.

I want REAL data to go along with the high level of confidence expressed in the GW hypothesis. Real temperature data is insignificant (better word than "useless") in the time scale of climate studies, yes. But I would feel much better about the GW claims of the 0.6 degree increase if they had actually added all the temps from all existing temp stations and averaged it out and discovered this increase over the last 100 averages. I don't feel good that this "average global surface temperature" is actually a computer invention based on 5x5 grids of the earth, AFTER a lot of data adjustments and extrapolations. Do you see what I mean?

And yes, I am a she.

Quote:
I could be wrong. CTS is generally pretty sharp. I'm looking forward to seeing what she says about Ruddiman's theories.

I can't really comment until I've read his book. I'll look into it.

Quote:
As for economics: did CTS really say that the oil industry is inventing climate change because sequestration plans burn more oil? Really? CTS - please explain this. I worked in the petroleum geophysics field for 13 years and never heard about that.

I said economics explains why the oil industry supports GW, and maybe even encouraged the movement. Sequestration requires increased consumption of energy (be it oil, coal, wind, whatever). Oil is an energy industry, so they are very likely to get increased sales. Whatever costs GW legislation requires in limits and cleanups will just get passed onto the consumer. So they have very little to lose and everything to gain by an increased demand on energy. I hope that makes what I meant clearer.

Quote:
Oil is against climate change. Big time. I'm shocked that any thinking person can convince themselves differently.

I appreciate your example. But your example is of petroleum geologists, who are not selling oil or energy. I still haven't seen where any of the oil companies (like BP or Exxon) is opposing the idea of GW.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. -- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I want REAL data to go along with the high level of confidence expressed in the GW hypothesis. Real temperature data is insignificant (better word than "useless") in the time scale of climate studies, yes....

And yet you keep focusing on recent temperature measurements. It doesn't matter if "they" find a better averaging scheme. It does not signify. (yes, good word)

The beauty of science is making enough observations that you can begin to know about the invisible. Some people don't believe in plate tectonics because they can't actually see the plates moving. And those GPS measurements? Bah! Silly computer tricks! Other clues like magnetic patterns of seafloor spreading, the shapes of continents, speciation? Well, deniers don't even take the debate into this level of detail, since they've already dismissed the theory.

Yes, I do mean to say that this is what you sound like. The historical data above is not invented, and is not meaningless: it is a direct observation of the earth and is supported by several independent lines of inquiry. I won't spend more time showing them to you, because it seems plain that you've made up your mind not to accept this information.

You can put that limit on your own knowledge base, and that's a shame. Makes your other theories rather hollow, that you are so selective of evidence.

Luckily, this selectiveness is not an actual limit for science. You know, that whole "independent line of inquiry" thing, that search for patterns. Means we can know about a whole lot of things, even if we can't touch them.

Quote:
I said economics explains why the oil industry supports GW, and maybe even encouraged the movement. Sequestration requires increased consumption of energy (be it oil, coal, wind, whatever). Oil is an energy industry, so they are very likely to get increased sales.

You say you like data. Do you have numbers on the increased use of oil involved in sequestration? Do you have an example of where this added use of energy would happen? In fact, can you define what processes you are thinking of as "sequestration", because they seem quite different from mine.

Most importantly, can you show that the energy use in sequestration is a significant income relative to the cost of shifting away from oil to cleaner forms of energy?

Quote:
I appreciate your example. But your example is of petroleum geologists, who are not selling oil or energy. I still haven't seen where any of the oil companies (like BP or Exxon) is opposing the idea of GW.

Um... are you sure you're somewhat close to the industry? AAPG is BP and Exxon and Schlumberger and the rest. Remember when I said that I worked in the industry for 13 years? I know the people who publish in AAPG and Geophysics and JGR. They are the people who work for these companies.

Petroleum geologists make their living off of finding and selling oil. Are you really not aware of that?

And: "I still haven't seen where any of the oil companies (like BP or Exxon) is opposing the idea of GW."

Really? I'm a little lost on how to deal with that. I mean, I know individuals within the industry that are open to the scientific evidence. I've had this discussion with people still in the industry, that a smart oil companies would invest in developing alternative energy, because whoever figures it out first will be able to bury the others. A few companies have begun to talk a bit about this, but no one seems to moving on it. No one is seriously trying to develop something to compete with oil, not the last I heard.

And as for the companies as a whole, the lobbying/political action part? Well...

A complicated web of relationships revolves around a number of right-wing think-tanks around the world that dispute the threats of climate change. ExxonMobil is a key player behind the scenes, having donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years to climate change sceptics. The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs), received more than $100,000 in 2008 from ExxonMobil, according to the oil company's reports.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/thinktanks-tak
e-oil-money-and-use-it-to-fund-climate-deniers-1891747.html

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-toba
cco.html

Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/30/us-oil-donated-milli
ons-climate-sceptics

And let's not forget GWB, whose administration stomped on any talk of climate change, including pressuring scientists to be silent:

The top climate scientist at NASA says the Bush administration has tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture last month calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/science/earth/29climate.html

Interviews with current and former EPA staff, as well as an internal EPA memo reviewed for this report (see Appendix A) reveal that the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget demanded major amendments including:

* The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order to, according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis [which] supports the administration’s favored message.” 10
* The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the White House itself —that confirmed human activity is contributing to climate change. 11
* The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. 12
* The elimination of the summary statement— noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.” 13

According to the internal EPA memo, White House officials demanded so many qualifying words such as “potentially” and “may” that the result would have been to insert “uncertainty... where there is essentially none.”14
http://www.webexhibits.org/bush/5.html

And which industry did Bush and Cheney come from?

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Some people don't believe in plate tectonics because they can't actually see the plates moving. ?

.....because it seems plain that you've made up your mind not to accept this information.

I am sorry that once again, I have failed to communicate my position. I don't know how to make it plainer than what I've already said, so after this post, I won't belabor it.

Yes, plate tectonics is speculation. It is a theory supported by available data and data proxies, but it is ultimately educated guesswork.

Does that mean the data is invented? Some of it come from direct measurements; some of it is "invented" or correlated, yes. Does this mean the data is meaningless or useless? No, of course not.

I homeschool. What I teach my kids is, "This is what scientist think happened. They don't know for sure, but for now, this model is working fairly well in explaining and predicting current real world events. There are always anomalies that don't fit within this model, but as more research is done, new models develop to replace the old ones."

I don't accept some evidence and dismiss other evidence. It is not an all-or-nothing deal. I accept all evidence, but my confidence decreases as the quality of the evidence moves away from empirical measurements tested by experimentation.

Lower quality evidence = less confidence. A LOT of lower quality evidence = still less confidence.

Less confidence does not mean the hypothesis is dismissed. It just means I am much more open to the possibility that it may be wrong. The lower quality the evidence is, the more I am unwilling to commit to any conclusions until I see better, harder evidence.

If I dismissed evidence, I would be a GW denier. As it is, I am a GW skeptic. A religiously fervert GW proponent would group them together. But I am hoping that as a scientist, you can understand the difference between denial and skepticism.

Quote:
You say you like data. Do you have numbers on the increased use of oil involved in sequestration?

My husband is the expert on this. I am just going by what he said. He estimated an extra 20% increase in energy to sequester carbon output. I initially said oil, but the extra energy can come from coal or natural gas or other sources. If you want the technical info on how he came up with the 20% estimate, I'll ask him.

Quote:
Do you have an example of where this added use of energy would happen? In fact, can you define what processes you are thinking of as "sequestration", because they seem quite different from mine.

Carbon sequestration is the removal and storage of CO2. My husband deals mostly with physical sequestration processes, though he is currently working on a proposal to use biological ones as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

I don't know the technical details, but basically, if you have an added process to remove and store carbon, you have use energy to fuel that process.

Quote:
Most importantly, can you show that the energy use in sequestration is a significant income relative to the cost of shifting away from oil to cleaner forms of energy?

... No one is seriously trying to develop something to compete with oil, not the last I heard.

Ahhh. You're thinking the whole GW problem would force oil to move to another source of energy.

With carbon sequestration, they don't have to shift to a cleaner form of energy.

Here is the thing. When the culprit is pinpointed as "carbon dioxide," then the culprit is no longer "oil." You see? All oil has to do is say, "We have removed the carbon dioxide" and the problem is solved. Why would they oppose GW now? All they have to do is come up with a solution for CO2. If it requires more oil, so much the better!

Quote:
They are the people who work for these companies.

Of course petroleum geologists work for these companies. But do they represent these companies? My husband works for the Dept of Energy, but his views on GW certainly don't represent those of the DOE.

Quote:
ExxonMobil is a key player behind the scenes, having donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years to climate change sceptics.

Thank you for the examples I asked for. I don't and can't dispute they have fought GW in the past. But things have changed in the last few years.

Here is an example:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

They have been publically moving away from the fight. In recent years, I speculate they are encouraging it. However, I wouldn't be surprised if they fund both sides of the argument, so they would have allies no matter who wins. See, if the deniers win and nothing changes, the oil companies win. If GW legislation wins, carbon sequestration gets used, and the oil companies win again.

Quote:

And let's not forget GWB, whose administration stomped on any talk of climate change, including pressuring scientists to be silent:

My husband's experience at the DOE during the Bush administration was pressure to be silent about disagreeing with global warming. That is not to say others weren't pressured in the opposite direction. But this was his experience, for what it's worth.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. -- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
You realize that virtually every single thing you've said about "good" capitalism is based entirely on IMAGINARY data, imaginary happenings in some fantastical imaginary world, where apparently humans don't exist and all the shops are owned and run by the Do-Gooder Fairy.

I never cited any data, imaginary or otherwise, to support my discussions of "good" capitalism.

But you do make a good point. I imagine a world where things can work with minimum government. Just like you imagine a world where things can work with minimum capitalism.

It boils down to our values and our fears. I fear force more than greed. You fear greed more than force. I envision a moral and beneficent capitalistic system. You envision a moral and beneficent government. We both use our imaginations, and we give the benefit of the doubt to that part which we fear less.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. -- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
If I dismissed evidence, I would be a GW denier. As it is, I am a GW skeptic. A religiously fervert GW proponent would group them together. But I am hoping that as a scientist, you can understand the difference between denial and skepticism.

I do, very well. What I see from you is denial of a theory based on evidence which really isn't central to it, and an avoidance of the data that is. Perhaps you are just waiting to collate data, as some would say, but I find it telling that you won't even talk about the data I posted. You didn't even try to learn more about it, but said: "You can post all the graphs you want about what researchers THINK happened 10,000 or 100,000 years ago. But at the end of the day, they don't have any PROOF--they just have SUPPORT."

You just dismissed this without looking into the supporting evidence that makes this a strong theory. (Of course it's not 100%. I never said it was) And you really are wrong here. Sorry, I can't soften the statement. You're just flat out wrong to dismiss this data so out of hand, and I think you'd see that if you looked into the science.

Anyhow, back to the scientific method: you are offering your own theory in this thread, that climate change is "a spectre that I don't see empirical evidence for." The evidence you presented to back your theory is:

1. The scientific evidence is a sham.

2. Oil companies are pushing this hoax so they can pull in cash with sequestration.

I am highly skeptical of your theory, and I've been telling you why. I'll continue to do so, and to show my own supporting data, because that's how science works. We both know the process, so let's stick with supplying evidence and maybe we'll get somewhere.

I would love to see your supporting data, and something more specific than what you've said so far.

Quote:
Carbon sequestration is the removal and storage of CO2. My husband deals mostly with physical sequestration processes, though he is currently working on a proposal to use biological ones as well.

I do know what sequestration is. A guy I worked with on my thesis did a bunch of research about sequestration in underground reservoirs in Michigan. I had many a talk with him about it. Surely pulling carbon out of the air and burying it would be nice; the fact that we're not doing that now tells me that there are pretty serious difficulties with the process. It may not ever happen.

The more pressing issue facing those who make public policy, and those balancing the sheets at oil companies (and in any industry with smoke stacks) is the reduction of emissions. Emission limits are very a real, very *soon* possibility, as opposed to sequestration. Emission limits are what could seriously mess with earnings, and this is what lead to the very well documented false information that came out of big oil and the GWB admin.

What I hear you saying is that the possibilities for sequestration are a bigger motivation for Big Oil, and that they are actively trying to sell climate change so that they can pocket billions off of some kind of sequestration machine. Have I heard wrong? Were you just being hypothetical?

Because if that's really what you're saying, that's not what I've experienced. Working in exploration, I was in on lots of chats about the general direction of the companies. Big Oil has learned to be afraid of the bad PR of backing Climate Change skeptics. I don't think Big Oil is "advocating" the theory nowadays as much as they're afraid of being seen as against it.

It's also like my crotchedy old grandda, who, in a drought, dug a well in his basement just so he could a put a sign in his yard saying: "WATER FROM PRIVATE WELL." Then he'd water his lawn all day (from the city water) and the local authorities couldn't do shit. If sequestration gets working at all, Big Oil and all the other industries can tell the activists to fuck off, and the Hummers can roam the earth. I think they're after seq. for the politics more than because they think they'll make cash off it, or because they think CC is real.

Anyway, I would like to know how you husband came up with that 20% number. Is he saying that total oil usage in the US, for example, would go up 20% if we got some method of sequestration to work?

The biological processes are cool as hell. I show clips about that in my classes, and had a student write an essay about one method. It has it's own drawbacks, though, so I'm still not ready to take that for a all-fire solution.

Quote:
Of course petroleum geologists work for these companies. But do they represent these companies? My husband works for the Dept of Energy, but his views on GW certainly don't represent those of the DOE.

The people who run AAPG certainly do represent the interests of the oil industry. Of course not every single person in the industry, but that award was just another sign of the industry mentality toward climate change.

Quote:
My husband's experience at the DOE during the Bush administration was pressure to be silent about disagreeing with global warming. That is not to say others weren't pressured in the opposite direction. But this was his experience, for what it's worth.

Oh certainly - people are pressured to be all alarmist. You have to say: "OMG the world's gonna end in 20 years if we don't change NOW!" or you get no headlines. Bad science like that does just as much damage as the deniers. Both sides are annoying.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 11:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
You just dismissed this without looking ... You're just flat out wrong to dismiss this data so out of hand, and I think you'd see that if you looked into the science.

Sigh. How many ways can I tell you that I didn't dismiss it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, April 25, 2010 12:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Anyway, I would like to know how you husband came up with that 20% number. Is he saying that total oil usage in the US, for example, would go up 20% if we got some method of sequestration to work?

This is what my husband said:

"A typical coal power plant will take a 8 point efficiency penalty for capturing CO2, assuming all the infrastructure for sequestration is already there. A typical power plant is at most most 33% efficient. Eight divided by 33 is about 24%. Current amine scrubbing systems can't even achieve the 8% target; they operate closer to a 12% hit to the plant's efficiency."

Quote:
I am highly skeptical of your theory, and I've been telling you why.

Good!

It's not even a theory. It is pure speculation that explains some of my husband's experiences.

Quote:
Surely pulling carbon out of the air and burying it would be nice; the fact that we're not doing that now tells me that there are pretty serious difficulties with the process.

The technology is there; there's no problem with that end. The serious difficulty is cost. Huge costs. Increased consumption of energy. Costs that will be passed to the consumer, without doubt.

Quote:
Anyhow, back to the scientific method: you are offering your own theory in this thread, that climate change is "a spectre that I don't see empirical evidence for." The evidence you presented to back your theory is:...

Let me stop you right there. I didn't present any evidence. I was just ranting, loosely. I wasn't presenting a formal defense of my position.

Quote:
1. The scientific evidence is a sham.

I would prefer to say, the evidence used to support global warming is not sufficiently empirical to instill me with confidence.

Quote:

I would love to see your supporting data, and something more specific than what you've said so far.

If you really want to debate the nuts and bolts, we'll probably have to start a new thread, where I can start fresh with a proper statement of my position and the data supporting my skepticism.

However, I would like to postpone such a debate until I've read Ruddiman's book, since his ideas (and apparently yours) are a little different from the usual GW claims. I have no idea if I will disagree with Ruddiman or how I would disagree if I do.

The book is on my Amazon wishlist. Next time I buy something, I'll throw it in. I hope that further supports my contention I am not dismissing anything; if I were, I wouldn't spend good money on something I've already dismissed, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, April 26, 2010 8:02 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well said, CantTake, and well reasoned. Although I am on the opposing side of the debate about climate change, I think you expressed yourself clearly and fairly.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, April 28, 2010 1:23 PM

HI CTS. Been holding off on getting back to this because of a very, very busy week. Just finally got to read your post tonight.

"A typical coal power plant will take a 8 point efficiency penalty for capturing CO2, assuming all the infrastructure for sequestration is already there. A typical power plant is at most most 33% efficient. Eight divided by 33 is about 24%. Current amine scrubbing systems can't even achieve the 8% target; they operate closer to a 12% hit to the plant's efficiency."

That makes very little sense to me - as in the vocab. I'm so not an engineer! What is the "penalty"? Is he meaning thermodynamics, that you have to burn hotter to get a higher efficiency? What does this have to do with sequestration?

But since this appears to be a process tied to power plants, it isn't removing CO2 from the air. It is only reducing the amount being newly added. The technology I thought you meant was actually filtering CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) out of the atmosphere. That step is nowhere near feasible, as I understand it. (BTW - when I talk about availability of technology, I do mean the cost as well as the technical ability. One is no good without t'other.)

Anyway, it seems by your husbands words that this coal-plant sequestration thing (I will look it up sometime - my brain can't take more tonight) is a pretty big pie in the sky itself. But even if it was a reality and coal plants had to use 20% more fuel, this is still a small part of total carbon usage - and it isn't even oil!

I just can't see sequestration as anything that would tempt the oil industry into backing climate change. I'm still a little blown at the suggestion, to be truthful!

Quote:
Good! It's not even a theory. It is pure speculation that explains some of my husband's experiences.

Uh... I'm finding it strange that you can be so critical of evidence presented by scientists, and yet be loose-y-goose-y with your own evidence. I mean, you've mellowed out now, but you were making some pretty strong statements up the thread a bit!

I guess I feel that if I'm going to nitpick somebody else's methods, I ought to be able to meet the standards I'm holding them to. Know what I mean?

Anyway, please do start that new thread when you have looked over the book. It's been an interesting find for me and I'd love to talk through it - the strengths and the weaknesses of his theories. There are plenty of both.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I guess I feel that if I'm going to nitpick somebody else's methods, I ought to be able to meet the standards I'm holding them to. Know what I mean?

I'm nitpicking methods used in GW conclusions claimed to be SCIENTIFIC. If the methods do not meet scientific rigor, it is correct to point the shortcomings out.

Contrast that to my own speculations. What did I say? That in our experience, big oil was very intolerant of dissent from GW. That we wondered, "hmm, why would that be." That they might have a lot of gain if carbon sequestration were to be legislated. That wouldn't we be more skeptical of GW "science" if we were to find out they encouraged the whole thing.

I didn't present my speculations as fact or science. Why should my musings about possible economic motivations have any scientific rigor in them?

You are accusing me of hypocrisy by holding any statement I make to the same standard I expect in the IPCC's report. Apples and oranges, buddy.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. -- HDT

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
>Well said, CantTake, and well reasoned. Although I am on the opposing side of the debate about climate change, I think you expressed yourself clearly and fairly.

Wow. Thank you, Niki.

(Just so you know, I do tend toward man-made regional warming, though I don't blame CO2. But I have no hard evidence... so I don't say much about that.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:37 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

You're welcome, but no thanks necessary. You said you were expresssing opinions and not citing fact or science; that's laudable here, where people express opinions are claim them as fact with no backup. It's only fair to recognize honesty like that, whether we agree or not. And your points and questions WERE clearly stated, that's also nice to see.

(Just 'cuz, I'm adopting "climate change", since "global warming" seems to mean to so many uneducated or deliberately ignorant people that if it's cold, that must be wrong. Tho' I believe it is actual "warming", what that MEANS is that climates are changing in different areas in different ways, and more drastic, unusual climate change is taking place as a result. I'm not sure if it's CO2 or not, but I have no doubt whatsoever that it is man made.)

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
>Well said, CantTake, and well reasoned. Although I am on the opposing side of the debate about climate change, I think you expressed yourself clearly and fairly.

Wow. Thank you, Niki.

(Just so you know, I do tend toward man-made regional warming, though I don't blame CO2. But I have no hard evidence... so I don't say much about that.)

Are you speaking of desertification?

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 6:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
You're welcome, but no thanks necessary. You said you were expresssing opinions and not citing fact or science; that's laudable here, where people express opinions are claim them as fact with no backup. It's only fair to recognize honesty like that, whether we agree or not. And your points and questions WERE clearly stated, that's also nice to see.

(Just 'cuz, I'm adopting "climate change", since "global warming" seems to mean to so many uneducated or deliberately ignorant people that if it's cold, that must be wrong. Tho' I believe it is actual "warming", what that MEANS is that climates are changing in different areas in different ways, and more drastic, unusual climate change is taking place as a result. I'm not sure if it's CO2 or not, but I have no doubt whatsoever that it is man made.)

Which is why it should have been referred to as "Global Climate Change" all along. All the models I've ever seen predict colder colds, hotter hots, and more drastic precipitation events AND droughts, as well as stronger hurricanes and tornadoes, as the "energy potential" in the warmer air increases.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, goodie; someone who really GETS IT! I'd suggest keeping reminding our nonbelievers that, but it wouldn't make any difference, would it? Yes, giving it "global warming" was a really dumb move; they should have anticipated how stupidly people would interpret that. But then scientists probably forget how stupid the general public is...more fools they!

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:14 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Fucking computers.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 7:54 AM

Niki - I have been careful to keep saying "climate change" throughout this thread, for the exact reasons you say. Global warming is so not the right term.

CTS - I guess it depends on what you're after. I tend to like productive discussions that reveal Truth, so I figure that if one is going to knock a scientific or economic or ANY hypothesis, one ought to have defensible reasons. And yes, it is quite hypocritical to hold others to standards that you do not apply to yourself.

You do not need to be an Official Board Certified Science (or Economics) Expert Theory Maker to hold yourself to the standard of proof.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:00 AM

Yes, it is rather ironic to say that you dismiss the evidence out of hand because you don't accept its standards of evidence, but you hold your beliefs tight even while admitting you have no evidentiary basis for those beliefs, just a hunch.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 8:19 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Good for you, Mal4; I wish we all did. At least then we'd be discussing something which deniers couldn't holler "but it's freezing here, so much for global warming!"

As to CTS' theories and posts, I disagree. She said the scientific evidence wasn't empirical enough FOR HER to be completely convinced. She also said

Quote:
Less confidence does not mean the hypothesis is dismissed. It just means I am much more open to the possibility that it may be wrong.

and

Quote:
If I dismissed evidence, I would be a GW denier. As it is, I am a GW skeptic.

She also questions why Big Oil seems to be in favor of believing in climate change, and that DOES seem a contradiction. Everyone has the right to notice contradictions and question them. I think more of our hard-liners should be open to questioning discrepancies and contradictions.

I think everyone has the right to question anything, without having to back up why they question it specifically and cite facts. At no point has CTS stated she categorically refuses to accept climate change, she says she's still waiting for evidence that makes her more confident it's valid. What's wrong with that?

I don't see any "dismissing" of evidence "out of hand", nor holding beliefs tight, just questioning. I find that far more admirable than those who come here and just state their beliefs as FACT, reject actual facts, have no backup, and refuse to see even the possibility they may be wrong.

I think the charges are unfair. Just my opinion.

"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:02 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Thanks Mikey, for clouting the concept to where I could understand it, cause this whole discussion went over my head so fast it spun.

I have my areas of competence, but for damned sure that ain't one of em!

Y'all need to remember that in order for the folks you wanna reach with these arguments to "get" them, you have GOT to get it in a format they can wrap their minds around, honestly.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:10 AM

I didn't say she couldn't question, Niki. But are you saying I can't question her questions?

(This is getting fun.

)

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Y'all need to remember that in order for the folks you wanna reach with these arguments to "get" them, you have GOT to get it in a format they can wrap their minds around, honestly.

So what if they seriously aren't capable of hearing?

And puh-lease folks! I don't mean to poke CTS with this question. She's being cool about saying she'll look into that book I brought up. OK, so I wish she'd get into this discussion now, cause I think it's cool, and I prefer arguing science over arguing approaches to science. But I get what she's doing. I'm cool to wait it out.

What I mean is: Frem, you have a point. But I seem to often find people on this site who absolutely will not hear, no matter what format I try to put things into. I'm thinking of the long ago God and evolution threads, and a few recent blow-ups that I'd prefer not to return to. Un-Plea-Sant with a capital UPS.

Thing is, I really do put a fair amount of work into trying to make my points as clear and concise as possible. It's disheartening to put time into telling about something and have people completely ignore it. (I'm thinking Anti and evolution. Well, and my posts up this thread too.)

I think my mistake is trying to bring logic and evidence into discussions about gut-feeling beliefs. Some people simply will not let logic intrude on their most dearly held beliefs. Hostility generally results, no matter how carefully my words are chosen.

With some folks, like Rappy and Anti and even... ack! the one who left over the God questions whose name I can't remember but was really a good guy... ack! Who was that?... it's like the hostility is an automatic reaction, a way to defend a belief in the face of evidence against it. When argument fails, belligerence and defensiveness saves the day.

Huh. Then there's me, who can create a tangent and hijack like I got a tanker off the coast of Somalia.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 12:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I didn't say she couldn't question, Niki. But are you saying I can't question her questions?

(This is getting fun. )

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

I think that was aimed in my direction, Mal4. And it's a fair enough charge, because I no doubt have over-reacted to CTS's skepticism and taken it as outright dismissal. My bad, and my apologies.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 12:56 PM

Quote:

With some folks, like Rappy and Anti and even... ack! the one who left over the God questions whose name I can't remember but was really a good guy... ack! Who was that?...

RIPWash? Was that who you were thinking of?

I miss ol' Ripper. He was conservative, but not in-your-face about it. He was kinda awesome, and he's quite missed. So is AnthonyT. Hope life's treating them very well, and hope they find their way back to our li'l corner of the 'verse one day. Until then, we hold 'til they come back.

Goes double for DreamTrove, also sorely missed.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:12 PM

A-ha! I had to do a search, but I found it: I meant Causal. And here's the thread:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=29741#522315

One of the more interesting discussions I've encountered here, and one that continues to stick in my mind.

BTW, I saw dismissal in CTS's posts too. I could go back and quote, but there's not much point. I think this horse is beaten beyond dead for the moment.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Well, rest assured that with me, the main reason I shut up when y'all get all scientific isn't that, it's that I really have NO CLUE enough to say anything, cause it's so tremendously far outside my competence - and I get quickly lost and left behind once I no longer even understand the arguments.

Of course, I favor a simpler set of principles which dodges the issue entirely, mind you.

Just cause I can be really smart dealing with stuff I know about, doesn't mean I actually know the science part of it - the reason I know even as much as I do is that it's all directly related to the specific topic, like how I know about traumas influence on neurobiological development, but I know shit about neurobiology... so my pools of knowledge are very deep, rather than broad.

And I can be seriously dense outside of my competence zone, just so ya know.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 4:47 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
A-ha! I had to do a search, but I found it: I meant Causal. And here's the thread:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=29741#522315

One of the more interesting discussions I've encountered here, and one that continues to stick in my mind.

BTW, I saw dismissal in CTS's posts too. I could go back and quote, but there's not much point. I think this horse is beaten beyond dead for the moment.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

I scanned this thread. Kind of depressed that there is still a debate about evolution going on. It's only in recent years that I have become aware that there are people who still believe in creationism

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:14 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
so I figure that if one is going to knock a scientific or economic or ANY hypothesis, one ought to have defensible reasons.

Wait a minute.

One minute you are calling me a hypocrite for not having scientific proof for my economic speculation (you do know that economics is not a science, don't you?). Next minute you are calling me a hypocrite for not having "defensible reasons" for being skeptical of a claim presented as scientific fact.

Of course I have defensible reasons. I have presented them. You don't agree they are defensible. That doesn't make me a hypocrite.

Now, if by "defensible," you mean the same kind of scientific rigor I expect from positive claims of scientific proof, you and I have very different definitions of skepticism.

You don't need scientific proof to be skeptical. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic--it is on the claimant. All the skeptic needs to do, to be skeptical, is to point out holes in the claimant's assertions.

Now, I have discussed the holes in generalities and not in great detail. That doesn't make me a hypocrite. As I said, I was not presenting a formal defense of my position.

Now, be nice and stop calling me a hypocrite. Or I won't buy Ruddiman's book. :P

Seriously, if you and I can't discuss this civilly without your hurling personal accusations at me, time after time, despite my clarifications, I see no point in pursuing this discussion. It either means your mind is made up about what kind of person I am and you are not going to listen to what I have to say, or I am not good at communicating my positions and you are not going to listen to what I have to say. Or both.

Ground rule: Attack my ideas all you want. But don't attack me. OK?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well, rest assured that with me, the main reason I shut up when y'all get all scientific isn't that, it's that I really have NO CLUE enough to say anything, cause it's so tremendously far outside my competence - and I get quickly lost and left behind once I no longer even understand the arguments.

But surely you have ideas about which side of the global warming debate is more persuasive to you thus far? I'm dying to know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
As to CTS' theories and posts, I disagree. She said the scientific evidence wasn't empirical enough FOR HER to be completely convinced.

Thank you again, Niki. You summarized beautifully. I'm impressed because one doesn't often see this level of fairness from someone who is on the opposing side of the debate.

Quote:
At least then we'd be discussing something which deniers couldn't holler "but it's freezing here, so much for global warming!"

And you notice I keep calling it global warming.

The reason is warming was very central to the global warming theory and movement. The entire foundation for the IPCC report was: "Over both the last 140 years and 100 years, the best estimate is that the global average surface temperature has increased by 0.6 ± 0.2°C." It was all about how this warming was significant and how CO2 could be the cause.

Here's the way I've observed current events. Over time, as the predictions of the warming model failed to come true in the real world, the rhetoric of GW proponents has changed. Now it is "climate change," where we can blame any kind of climate, warm or cold, on CO2.

In science, one of the core tools we have is falsifiability. All hypotheses, to be useful, have to be falsifiable--they have to be stated in a way where they can be proven wrong in experimentation. Otherwise, it is useless.

What I see is the global warming hypothesis being changed in such a way as to make it LESS falsifiable. The new climate change hypothesis has a harder time being proven wrong when matched to real data, since no matter what happens, it is being supported.

This might be a good time for me to raise the question, if you want to use the term "climate change" instead of "global warming," under what conditions would you feel the hypothesis was proven wrong? What in the real world could convince you that there was no climate change going on? What are your criteria for falsifiability?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, April 29, 2010 5:50 PM