Climate Change, again...

[EyeKhan]

You have to ask the question, with the first 6 months of 2010 being the warmest on record, with Russia experiencing the worst drought on record, and Pakistan drowning under the worst flooding on record, etc etc. BTW - I went up to the UP last week and swam in the comfortable waters of Lake Superior... Not only was it beautiful (pics to be posted some time this week), but the lake is normally very cold even in summer. But with the long warm spring and the warm, wet summer (corn crops in MI are 2 full weeks ahead of schedule, btw), the lake is as pleasant as it was in 1998, the last time I swam in this particular spot. In all seriousness, I don't think Michigan has had a full five days this summer without rain. It's like a planned climate - good for just about everybody.

Anyway, of course everyone's saying "I told you so" or "I wonder if..." and predictably the scientists are saying "probably, yeah, this is likely influenced by climate warming, but we don't have (can't have?) any definitive evidence" and, though I've not heard anything directly, I'm sure there's a cadre of deniers saying something like "...ya bunch of chicken littles! There's no way humans can change the climate! Remember the Dust Bowl?!?! This ain't nothin' new."

The NYTs had a front page article on these questions Sunday. They reported a study of Record Lows vs. Record Highs in the US and how the ratio has gone from about 1 to 1 in the 1950s to 1 to 2 in the 2000s, an indicator that the climate is warming independant of normal weather variation. Thoughts? Lets hear it.

[Ominous Gamer]

We are apparently going to let the debate on [climate] science run until hell freezes over. If you can't accept the conclusions of 98% of scientists whose FIELD IT IS, then why even bother with science? If that high a percentage is to be discounted ENTIRELY, then we are in deep trouble

-1990 Pulitzer Prize Winner, Tom Toles

[Nessus]

I talked about this tangentially with Low-key on IRC the other night, namely how it might be fun to draw comparisons with the conservative politico-pundits opposing climate change and the Ahnenerbe. I haven't had the inclination to wade through the anti-climate change crowd's drivel to drive the point home, though, nor is it my field by a long shot.

[RandBlade]

2 thoughts.

1: Independent oddities (whether high or low) do not on their own make a trend or evidence for anything other than an individual oddity. Yes, Russia and Pakistan have had extreme's but that means nothing - we have a record something every year.
2: 98% is not proof. If it was we'd never have any scientific progress because progress comes traditionally from the 1-2% who question the established views and show that what was believed was actually wrong.

[Nessus]

2: 98% is not proof. If it was we'd never have any scientific progress because progress comes traditionally from the 1-2% who question the established views and show that what was believed was actually wrong.

This doesn't actually have much to do with how science happens today, for better or worse. Although the perpetually expanding Earth/alternative gravitation theories can be amusing!

[EyeKhan]

2 thoughts.

1: Independent oddities (whether high or low) do not on their own make a trend or evidence for anything other than an individual oddity. Yes, Russia and Pakistan have had extreme's but that means nothing - we have a record something every year.

What about the ratio of Record Highs to Record Lows going from 1 to 1 in the 1950s to 2 to 1 in the 2000s? That's independant of weather's well established short term foibles.... Thoughts? Do you think nothing's changed regarding climate or do you think it has warmed but people arn't responsible? And if the former, how do you explain all the scientists getting it wrong? And for the latter, too, for that matter...

2: 98% is not proof. If it was we'd never have any scientific progress because progress comes traditionally from the 1-2% who question the established views and show that what was believed was actually wrong.

Come on. This is nonsense.

[Ominous Gamer]

I wonder how far people will stretch the independent oddities claim. Worldwide, 2009 wrapped up the hottest decade on record, 2007 is the current record holder for the hottest year on record, but 2010 is expected to win that title soon enough, every month this year has been an individual hottest on record, except July, which was 2nd hottest.

[Cracky]

Science isn't actually supposed to be established by democratic vote. Rather, empirical proof is the method of science.

[Nessus]

Science isn't actually supposed to be established by democratic vote. Rather, empirical proof is the method of science.

And no one said anything to the contrary! But thanks for chiming in.

[EyeKhan]

Science isn't actually supposed to be established by democratic vote. Rather, empirical proof is the method of science.

Right. And, well, that's what all the scientists are going on for Human Caused Climate Change, so far as I know. I suppose there could be a global conspiracy for Grant Money, but, uh . . . .

[Cracky]

It's your interpretation, not what's happening.

You should attack rand's post on his weak point 1, not his strong point 2...

[Nessus]

It'd be equally fallacious to accuse Randy's stupid second point of pandering to the Jeff Jacques theory of climatology as it'd be to ignore the motivation behind the climate change denial.

[EyeKhan]

It's your interpretation, not what's happening.

What interpretation?

You should attack rand's post on his weak point 1, not his strong point 2...

2 is nonsense. His knowledge of sceintific discovery is limited to the those that made earth-shattering headlines (like Humans are Descended from Monkeys! or The Universe is Expanding!) , not the day to day grind that has resulted in a mountain of support for Human Caused Climate Warming. He's effectively saying the results of the vast majority of observational and model science done that supports climate warming is false and the bare minority of science done that denies it (if you can call it science...) is in fact true because Einstein discovered that Time slows with acceleration when everyone at the time thought it was absolute. That doesn't make any sense.

[Cracky]

^THen we are both interpreting rand's post differently. I simply got

"the results of the vast majority of observational and model science done that supports climate warming does not make proof"

[Nessus]

Who moved the thread

[EyeKhan]

^THen we are both interpreting rand's post differently. I simply got

"the results of the vast majority of observational and model science done that supports climate warming does not make proof"

It depends on what you mean by "proof." But as worded, Rand's #2 doesn't make any sense.

Who moved the thread

I did.

[Nessus]

^THen we are both interpreting rand's post differently. I simply got

"the results of the vast majority of observational and model science done that supports climate warming does not make proof"

It's the same line of "argument" used in Creation Science; foo isn't proof and then there's all sorts of fallacies about this and that, Randy elected to spice it up with an allusion to (presumably) Einstein instead of the fringe science we've all come to know and love.

[Cracky]

^Scientific proof: i.e. Emperical evidence.

A literal reading of what rand said in #2 makes perfect sense.

edit: ok, so yeah, there's some subtext you guys are reading into that I am not then...

[EyeKhan]

^Scientific proof: i.e. Emperical evidence.

A literal reading of what rand said in #2 makes perfect sense.

edit: ok, so yeah, there's some subtext you guys are reading into that I am not then...

There's a mountain of emperical evidence supporting climate change. Did I say mountain? I meant mountain range; an entire continental divide of it.

[Cracky]

^Really?

I know there's lots of statistical evidence, and some computational evidence. But I've never seen any actual empirical evidence for it.

Link?

[EyeKhan]

^Really?

I know there's lots of statistical evidence, and some computational evidence. But I've never seen any actual empirical evidence for it.

Link?

Oh god, you have to be kidding.

[Cracky]

Nope.

[EyeKhan]

Nope.

It isn't personal, but I've had this exact argument at least five times where I go and post a dozen links to respected sources with all sorts of data and support and so on then whoever's opposing proceeds to ignore it or whatever. I'm not that interested in doing the research for you and whoever else. And, of course, if you do your own search you'll find plenty of snazzy web sites full of misinformation that would take time and effort to challenge and pick appart for the politically and Money motivated lies it is, only to be ignored again, so, honestly, do you see a point in that?

[Khendraja'aro]

Soo, let me see: A shitload of evidence gets thrown right out of the window, because, hell, we might have to do something about that and we can't have that because of the mighty moneys.

I see this trend every time: Why exactly is it so hard to see that, maybe, just maybe, we might have to be a bit more careful about the environment we live in - because, after all, we don't exactly have a spare Earth available next door?

This kind of thinking probably is grounded in the fact that we humans are notoriously bad when it comes to making long-term strategies. Throw in a problem that rears its ugly head only in the next century and you have something the average Joe Blow can easily ignore because, hell, it ain't him who's affected.

And Cracky, your argument about "empirical evidence" is absolutely moronic - because I believe that the amount of "empirical evidence" you require would amount to having to find a second Earth, pump it full of Greenhouse gasses and then look at what's happening. Moronic idea. If that was the way Science worked nowadays, we'd never get anything new out of the door.

A380? Impossible. Pretty much any CPU from the last decades? Infeasible. And so on and so forth.

[EyeKhan]

Venus very ably demonstrates a greenhouse effect.

[Cracky]

And Cracky, your argument about "empirical evidence" is absolutely moronic - because I believe that the amount of "empirical evidence" you require would amount to having to find a second Earth, pump it full of Greenhouse gasses and then look at what's happening. Moronic idea. If that was the way Science worked nowadays, we'd never get anything new out of the door.

That was my point. And for a large part that is how science works, the vast majority of fields can have experiments performed in controlled conditions, rather than requiring a second earth.
Fact of the matter is that climatology is an ill understood field, and most predictions come from computer models which lack in other ways too.

All that can be predicted, at the end of the day, is a broad range of possible outcomes, and typically we tend to err on the side of caution. There is no reason to believe anthropogenic warming is conclusively happening, though there may be (good) reason to believe it might be happening.

And at the end of the day, there are really more pressing issues. Hunger, energy, overpopulation, air quality, the ozone layer everyone seems to have forgotten about. I'd rather effort was made to tackling certain sever problems, rather than probable problems.

[RandBlade]

He's effectively saying the results of the vast majority of observational and model science done that supports climate warming is false and the bare minority of science done that denies it (if you can call it science...) is in fact true because Einstein discovered that Time slows with acceleration when everyone at the time thought it was absolute. That doesn't make any sense.

No I'm not.

I'm saying that simplistic nonsense like "if you can't accept the conclusions of 98% of scientists whose FIELD IT IS, then why even bother with science?" is bullshit. Why bother with science is we're looking for the truth, regardless of what we want to believe or what the majority opinion of today is.

As for Anthropogenic Climate Change, I believe it is probably happening. Happy? I don't however think we should abolish science because 98% believe something is probably true, even if I agree with them. We should still approach the subject in a scientific and not a political manner. Dismissive language like "if you can call it science..." is conducive to proper scientific research. If you're going in with such a closed-mind that anything that points in the opposite direction can't be science then you're not applying the scientific method.

I believe strongly in two things: Science and Capitalism. The former every bit as much as the latter and believe the two combined make our lives better, how often have I referred to science being the answer to certain problems? Or that today's society is better than the past because of science? I object to any poisoning of the scientific method for political reasons.

[EyeKhan]

No I'm not.

I'm saying that simplistic nonsense like "if you can't accept the conclusions of 98% of scientists whose FIELD IT IS, then why even bother with science?" is bullshit.

I agree with this statement in absolute terms. However when you're dealing with specialties you have to, in practical terms, defer to the experts under the assumption they know what they're talking about if for no other reason than you don't. And would you agree, in this context, that a 98% majority is more meaningful than a 50% split when you can't be an expert in the subject yourself?

[Ziggy Stardust]

No I'm not.

I'm saying that simplistic nonsense like "if you can't accept the conclusions of 98% of scientists whose FIELD IT IS, then why even bother with science?" is bullshit. Why bother with science is we're looking for the truth, regardless of what we want to believe or what the majority opinion of today is.

I believe the sentiment is usually aimed towards those who reject the 98% and simply state: Climate Change is not happening, Mars is also heating up/Vulcanoes produce more CO2/Puerto Rice had snow two years ago/in the 70's the scientists thought we were heading for an ice age/and can continue listing nonsense non-arguments for a while.

Anyone who says it doesn't need more research is wrong, and if that's what you mean, I agree.

As for Anthropogenic Climate Change, I believe it is probably happening. Happy? I don't however think we should abolish science because 98% believe something is probably true, even if I agree with them. We should still approach the subject in a scientific and not a political manner.

Too late. It's welded true in the Political arena. The research done will be cherry picked and misrepresented by politics to cater to the audience they want to reach. And the thing is, most people will heed the words of their favourite politician telling them what they want to hear over some dusty ol' scientist.

I believe strongly in two things: Science and Capitalism. The former every bit as much as the latter and believe the two combined make our lives better, how often have I referred to science being the answer to certain problems? Or that today's society is better than the past because of science? I object to any poisoning of the scientific method for political reasons.

Just be mindful Capitalism also is very capable of harming the Scientific Research and has done so in the past.

Science needs to be independent, but it also needs funding. There's the conflict. Would you fund that which has the potential to harm your company (short term thinking)?

[RandBlade]

Just be mindful Capitalism also is very capable of harming the Scientific Research and has done so in the past.

Science needs to be independent, but it also needs funding. There's the conflict. Would you fund that which has the potential to harm your company (short term thinking)?

Is that actually true though? Got any evidence that science is blocked by companies?

Because the beauty of science is that it almost doesn't matter who funded it because once we have progress its there, whether someone else likes it or not. Which means that it can be in your interests

I read many years ago that two of the main sources of funding into alternative energies was from ... oil companies and automobile companies. Because oil companies like Royal Dutch/Shell and others know that if oil is replaced as a future means of energy generation then they want to be the one providing the alternative, while car companies like Toyota want to lead the race towards greener cars.

Fictional movies like Chain Reaction may present evil corporations/government conspiracies to block science but that doesn't mean that its true.