Quote from: Ian AbsentiaFirst, I should apologise, because my comment was a bit of an ad hominem. But I criticised you instead of your argument because your means of refuting others' arguments is to suggest or cite exceptions to statements and conclude from those exceptions that the argument is false.  I call that sort of thing "bath-watering" as in "throwing out the baby with..."  In a sense, it's just as much a case of cherry-picking as the accusation you made that sometimes scientists cherry-pick their data to support their theses.  It's boorish and tedious.

!i!

Microsoft I believe once referred to that marketing technique as "fear, uncertainty, and doubt".  You don't have to actual debunk or disprove a thing, just cast a lot of vague aspersions and doubt over it with little to no support.

Quote from: Kyle AaronA good website talking about climate change issues in both layman's and scientific terms, with copious links and checkable references, is realclimate.org.

I'm glad you didn't use the word "non-partisan".

Quote from: Kyle AaronThey debunk The Great Global Warming Swindle here.

Of course they do.  I can find a "debunking" of everyone one of these arguments from both sides.  That's why it's important to read the rebuttals of the rebuttals and so on.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNASA and the USGS now believe that the recent warming on Mars can be entirely accounted for by its dust storms.

Mars isn't the only other planet showing warming.

Quote from: Kyle AaronSolar forcing is a favourite of many denialists like Morrow, their argument being, "well if the sun's shining brighter, of course it's hotter." Logical on the face of it. The problem is that the Sun is not shining more brightly over time, radiance follows the sunspot 11-year cycle,

Ah, "solar forcing".  You have been reading rebuttal sites, haven't you?

Again, have you bothered to look for anyone who disagrees with or rebuts those assertions?

For example:

Sun's Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

And since you seem to like Wikipedia charts:


Oh, and let's not forget the the Earth's magnetic field has been weakening for a while now, letting more radiation hit the Earth.

Quote from: Kyle AaronIn addition, in 2006 there was a recent review (740kb pdf) of studies on the solar forcing issue; among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. (NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.) "Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness," says Wigley.

There results "imply" that human influences "must" far outweigh the Sun's effects?  It's not that difficult to find other studies that come to a different conclusion, which is why I find the confidence with which people declare these questions "thoroughly debunked" quite unwarranted.

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat about them cosmic rays? Sadly, we cannot blame them for gloabl climate change, since they also are cyclical, and have a steady trend over the past 56 years - actually slightly downward, but not considered significant. You can get the raw data here, but graphs are so pretty, no?

Of course if you actually followed any of the links I posted earlier in this tread, you would have found that very chart being addressed.  But why bother reading what the other side has to say when you've made up your mind, right?  

Quote from: Kyle AaronMorrow et al's response is a bit like the four stage foreign office response to any crisis, as described so well in Yes, Prime Minister.

And it always comes back to the ad hominem attack or straw man.  Why is that, exactly?

By the way...

Quote from: John MorrowCorrelation does not equal causation.  And looking at the variability in climate in the past can help one determine how much of it seems to be causation and how much is simply unrelated correlation.

No shit.  There's a reason why I used the word "correlation" instead of "causation".  That trend in the range of variation seen in both the historical and geological record is exactly what I referred to.  Responsible science is all about correlation and trend.  Causation is the domain of policy.  But responsible policy isn't about hemming and hawing and saying, "but, sometimes, maybe, except".

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaFirst, I should apologise, because my comment was a bit of an ad hominem. But I criticised you instead of your argument because your means of refuting others' arguments is to suggest or cite exceptions to statements and conclude from those exceptions that the argument is false.

For example?

I actually posted some fairly lengthy rebuttals but I assume nobody is bothering to actually read them.  That's the way these things usually go.  That's why I'm not bothering to find peer-reviewed sources because whenever I've gone through the trouble, nobody really cares.  It's more of an, "I dare you, because I don't think you'll take the time to do it!"

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI call that sort of thing "bath-watering" as in "throwing out the baby with..."  In a sense, it's just as much a case of cherry-picking as the accusation you made that sometimes scientists cherry-pick their data to support their theses.  It's boorish and tedious.

And what's the baby being thrown out with the bath-water here?

So, No one saw the newer Four Horsemen thread, which seemed to be set up to shift the Gobal Warming (And other controversies) chat over there.


- Ed C.

Quote from: John MorrowThose problems have been happening anyway.  People need to remember that almost all of those problems plagued Europe and the United States at various points until the latter part of the 20th Century.  Not only two World Wars but also things like the Dust Bowl which, as I mentioned, let my aunt's family to migrate from Oklahoma to California.  In fact, plenty of American immigration from Europe, until the mid-20th Century, was driven by many of those issues.  Again, I think the problem here is that many people's memories stop at 1950 or 1970.

That's why I said increasing John, I appreciate many folk's memories stop as you say, but not mine.  I said increasing to denote more than would otherwise be the case, other things being equal.  We can (IMO) say that this will make things much worse, we cannot say with any certainty how bad things would be otherwise but the world being as it is we can be sure that Mr Fukuyama would have been wrong no matter what happened.

My point is that IMO climate change will increase the issues I outlined over the coming century, not that we would not have had them anyway, but that this will make them worse than would otherwise have been the case.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd, of course, China and India are exempt from the Kyoto reduction framework, which is why I find the importance people give to that agreement so laughable.  Even if followed to the letter, it wasn't going to do much and, of course, almost nobody who signed on to it is really following it, anyway.  So is it worse to just admit that you aren't going to follow it and not sign it or praise it, sign it, and then not follow it?

For good or ill, the US is still leader of the free world and all that, having the US on board would have made it easier to bring pressure to bear.  That said, I think Kyoto is a sad joke to be honest.  I've spent a lot of time looking at the Kyoto principle and it's a bloody depressing document if you're on my side of where the evidence points if you get my drift.

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not just China and India.  Much of the Third World feels that way.  And there are plenty of examples of them being jerked around by the developed world on environmental issues (e.g., DDT, genetically modified crops, etc.).

Sure, but China and India are the ones undergoing massive industrialisation on an epic scale, those are the two that count globally in terms of contribution.    As I said, I sympathise, we have screwed the developing world royally on a great many issues and frequently ask them to do as we say, not as we did.  The reason for citing China and India is the size of their economies, populations and scale of development.  Other developing countries matter, but nobody remotely on their scale.

On the debunking, there's no end to that as you note.  I have for example read Lomborg's rebuttal of his own debunking, I have read rebuttals of that, and rebuttals of those rebuttals.  At the end of the day, you have to read such evidence as you are able to understand and have time to absorb and take a view, there is never an end to the cycle of rebuttals one can quote.  That said, an equality of rebuttals does not mean the rebuttals are of equal quality, again we have to assess for ourselves what we find persuasive.  Lomberg to me feels like Michael Moore, I simply don't trust the man and I don't think he has the training to make the claims he does.  Your mileage may vary (on Lomborg, I suspect your mileage may not vary so much on Moore who I regard as a partisan  hack who intentionally distorts facts for political ends, but that's another debate).

I need to post on some roleplaying threads...

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBy the way...No shit.  There's a reason why I used the word "correlation" instead of "causation".  That trend in the range of variation seen in both the historical and geological record is exactly what I referred to.  Responsible science is all about correlation and trend.

Not when claims are being made by scientists about causation, as they are in the global warming debate.  If you want to make claims about causation, then you need to show causation, not simply imply it or claim it's there.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaCausation is the domain of policy.  But responsible policy isn't about hemming and hawing and saying, "but, sometimes, maybe, except".

Responsible policy also isn't about passing meaningless treaties that nobody follows and promoting plans that will throw the world's economy into a tailspin.  

And I would argue that America's Founding Fathers, by creating a government of checks and balances designed to make it difficult to get anything done, understood that hemming and hawing instead of grabbing a bunch of the public's money and liberty to do "something" in a hurry when the threat isn't clear is a good thing.  The world does not need a global version of The Great Leap Forward.

Quote from: KoltarSo, No one saw the newer Four Horsemen thread, which seemed to be set up to shift the Gobal Warming (And other controversies) chat over there.


- Ed C.

I thought that was the new Commit Suicide Because the World Is So Depressing and Give jeff37923 Your Money Since You Won't Be Needing It Anymore thread.

Come on guys. Everyone knows that the real threat to us is someone walking into your house/place of work and blowing themselves up.

Quote from: John MorrowFor example?

I actually posted some fairly lengthy rebuttals but I assume nobody is bothering to actually read them.  That's the way these things usually go.  That's why I'm not bothering to find peer-reviewed sources because whenever I've gone through the trouble, nobody really cares.

I have read them actually, I haven't responded to everything by any means and being perfectly honest I wouldn't follow up peer reviewed articles as I just don't have the time currently (and in any event I trust you to summarise them accurately) and could be quite unqualified to assess them, but I have read your rebuttals and I don't think I'm alone in that.

Not responding to every point doesn't mean not reading them, for me at least if I don't respond to a point it's more likely because I don't have the time to post the kind of response it would deserve.  I'm surprised Kyle has the time to post his.

Of course, if I don't reply, I can't expect to change your mind, but that's a choice I make with any post I choose not to reply to or only to partially reply to.

Quote from: BalbinusThat's why I said increasing John, I appreciate many folk's memories stop as you say, but not mine.

Fair enough.  My point here is that we've been living in a period of relative peace and stability for long enough that a lot of people seem to forget how abnormal that might be and what things were like before it.

Quote from: BalbinusI said increasing to denote more than would otherwise be the case, other things being equal.  We can (IMO) say that this will make things much worse, we cannot say with any certainty how bad things would be otherwise but the world being as it is we can be sure that Mr Fukuyama would have been wrong no matter what happened.

I think it may certainly press the issue, but I think those issues are inevitable.  The growth and industrialization of places like China and India are going to create environmental problems (e.g., pollution, fresh water shortages) and resource problems (e.g., oil, lumber, steel, etc.) regardless of whether Global Warming happens or not.  There are going to be growing pains.  And my concern with attempts to manage it is not over intentions (which I think are often noble) but results (attempts at centrally planning things like that have a very good history of killing millions of people).  See your own bread subsidy example.  The Road to Hell being paved with good intentions and all that.

Quote from: BalbinusMy point is that IMO climate change will increase the issues I outlined over the coming century, not that we would not have had them anyway, but that this will make them worse than would otherwise have been the case.

I agree with that.

Quote from: BalbinusFor good or ill, the US is still leader of the free world and all that, having the US on board would have made it easier to bring pressure to bear.

In the US, treaties require Senate ratification.  That's just not going to happen with a treaty like Kyoto.  That's why the Clinton administration never sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification, and why I said that the administration in power is irrelevant.

Quote from: BalbinusThat said, I think Kyoto is a sad joke to be honest.  I've spent a lot of time looking at the Kyoto principle and it's a bloody depressing document if you're on my side of where the evidence points if you get my drift.

I understand exactly what you are saying.  Even if it works exactly as expected, it really does nothing.

Quote from: BalbinusSure, but China and India are the ones undergoing massive industrialisation on an epic scale, those are the two that count globally in terms of contribution.    As I said, I sympathise, we have screwed the developing world royally on a great many issues and frequently ask them to do as we say, not as we did.  The reason for citing China and India is the size of their economies, populations and scale of development.  Other developing countries matter, but nobody remotely on their scale.

Fair enough.  Agreed.

Quote from: BalbinusOn the debunking, there's no end to that as you note.  I have for example read Lomborg's rebuttal of his own debunking, I have read rebuttals of that, and rebuttals of those rebuttals.  At the end of the day, you have to read such evidence as you are able to understand and have time to absorb and take a view, there is never an end to the cycle of rebuttals one can quote.  That said, an equality of rebuttals does not mean the rebuttals are of equal quality, again we have to assess for ourselves what we find persuasive.

Absolutely.  But I think that the pattern and tone of the rebuttals can provide some information, as well.

Quote from: BalbinusLomberg to me feels like Michael Moore, I simply don't trust the man and I don't think he has the training to make the claims he does.  Your mileage may vary (on Lomborg, I suspect your mileage may not vary so much on Moore who I regard as a partisan  hack who intentionally distorts facts for political ends, but that's another debate).

However questionable Lomborg's motives are, though, I found the original Scientific American rebuttal to be an embarrassment to the magazine.  If you are going to claim the high ground of science, at least act like scientists.

Quote from: BalbinusI need to post on some roleplaying threads...

Probably a good idea.

Quote from: BalbinusNot responding to every point doesn't mean not reading them, for me at least if I don't respond to a point it's more likely because I don't have the time to post the kind of response it would deserve.  I'm surprised Kyle has the time to post his.

OK.  Fair enough.  But I posted a link to a page that addressed a chart that Kyle posted, before he posted it.

Quote from: BalbinusOf course, if I don't reply, I can't expect to change your mind, but that's a choice I make with any post I choose not to reply to or only to partially reply to.

I'm willing to believe that climate change is happening and I'm even willing to believe that there is a human caused component to it.  I simply don't believe that we understand climate well enough to understand exactly what's going on or to project what's going to happen in the future with any certainty.  I'm also skeptical of any single-cause analysis of a complex issue and I think that they insistence that it's all man-made is being driven by the Luddite wing of the environmentalist movement more than science.  And in the big scheme of things, I trust people to respond to the changes better than I trust them to predict and try to change them before they happen.

Quote from: One Horse TownCome on guys. Everyone knows that the real threat to us is someone walking into your house/place of work and blowing themselves up.

 Damn!! Not at my workplace hopefully - that would be a lot of shredded and shattered D&D books, reaper miniatures in their packaging and board games everywhere.  
 Now if the guy could be in the middle of the hallway with an almost dud explosive or limited radius explopsive device - I'd LOVE to destroy that singing tree thats in the main hallway of the Mall.


That singing tree is really obnoxious.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarDamn!! Not at my workplace hopefully - that would be a lot of shredded and shattered D&D books, reaper miniatures in their packaging and board games everywhere.  

I assume you guys carry at least one copy of the Hero core book?  Keep that near the counter in case of the above situation.

Quote from: walkerpI assume you guys carry at least one copy of the Hero core book?  Keep that near the counter in case of the above situation.

I believe we have TWO copies and a maybe a few sidekickers too.


- Ed C.