In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[ryberg]

To extend my analogy with my wife's case and some sort of -- I would say unreasonable -- skeptic at CIS considering her residency application, I wonder if one point in the whole affair such as our lack of joint bank accounts will be seized on by someone a bit overzealous and overly skeptical as an indication that therefore the credibility and validity of the entire marriage is somehow in question, much as the quibbling over the amount the sea levels may rise or the degree of reduction in the snows of Kilimanjaro or arctic ice sheets seem to be taken as an indication that the overall IPCC report or gist of Gore's movie or whatever else is all tainted.

Or to take another example, perhaps they'll question the veracity of a letter from Father Bernard offering his firsthand experience with us, from the time before we were married to his participation in the (church) wedding ceremony itself to our contact with him through the hotel's toys for kids collection each Christmas to his dinners at our home from time to time with the extended family. Probably he's just our friend, they may think, and therefore biased; perhaps he even feels he is obliged to do us a favor and bend the truth of the matter because we have tried to help out his kids, or just because of the family's past political connections, you know. If he is biased, well, the whole case may be a sham, that agent might think.

And how completely wrong that CIS agent would be. How foolish it would be to reject all the years of photo and video we can provide, and the documentation of the children's births showing our names, and the bank statements showing we have sufficient funds, and the personal reports of people who know us, just because, hey, you know, no accounts showing both our names? a letter from the priest who married us and is a friend of the family?

Do these particular, arguably unexpected or possibly biased items here and there really throw into question the validity of the entire situation?

The answer in this debate from the skeptics' side seems to be, "Yes, they clearly do."

And again it makes one ask the question, what kind of case would such a skeptic accept, then?

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

To extend my analogy with my wife's case and some sort of -- I would say unreasonable -- skeptic at CIS considering her residency application, I wonder if one point in the whole affair such as our lack of joint bank accounts will be seized on by someone a bit overzealous and overly skeptical as an indication that therefore the credibility and validity of the entire marriage is somehow in question, much as the quibbling over the amount the sea levels may rise or the degree of reduction in the snows of Kilimanjaro or arctic ice sheets seem to be taken as an indication that the overall IPCC report or gist of Gore's movie or whatever else is all tainted.

Or to take another example, perhaps they'll question the veracity of a letter from Father Bernard offering his firsthand experience with us, from the time before we were married to his participation in the (church) wedding ceremony itself to our contact with him through the hotel's toys for kids collection each Christmas to his dinners at our home from time to time with the extended family. Probably he's just our friend, they may think, and therefore biased; perhaps he even feels he is obliged to do us a favor and bend the truth of the matter because we have tried to help out his kids, or just because of the family's past political connections, you know. If he is biased, well, the whole case may be a sham, that agent might think.

And how completely wrong that CIS agent would be. How foolish it would be to reject all the years of photo and video we can provide, and the documentation of the children's births showing our names, and the bank statements showing we have sufficient funds, and the personal reports of people who know us, just because, hey, you know, no accounts showing both our names? a letter from the priest who married us and is a friend of the family?

Do these particular, arguably unexpected or possibly biased items here and there really throw into question the validity of the entire situation?

The answer in this debate from the skeptics' side seems to be, "Yes, they clearly do."

And again it makes one ask the question, what kind of case would such a skeptic accept, then?

Steve

I agree.....another problem with the logic used is this...

On one hand, the opposition's only response to the preponderance of evidence presented seems to be that we should remember that there are a few who disagree that we should seriously consider.

One wonders then, why the initial debater does not concede to seriously consider the opinions of the submitters of the preponderance of evidence..that is, if they want me to consider the validity of the few, why do they not also seriously consider the opinion of the multitude?

If I should consider few scientific opinions to potentially sway me from believing the vast preponderance of scientific opinions, why then should not the opposition also be swayed by the vast preponderance of evidence barring any other objections (such as political affiliation) where none have been stated..barring of course a vast, left-wing political conspiracy. Its an assault on reason I tell you.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

...If I should consider few scientific opinions to potentially sway me from believing the vast preponderance of scientific opinions, why then should not the opposition also be swayed by the vast preponderance of evidence barring any other objections (such as political affiliation) where none have been stated..barring of course a vast, left-wing political conspiracy. Its an assault on reason I tell you.

It is a good phrase, isn't it?

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

To extend my analogy with my wife's case and some sort of -- I would say unreasonable -- skeptic at CIS considering her residency application, I wonder if one point in the whole affair such as our lack of joint bank accounts will be seized on by someone a bit overzealous and overly skeptical as an indication that therefore the credibility and validity of the entire marriage is somehow in question, much as the quibbling over the amount the sea levels may rise or the degree of reduction in the snows of Kilimanjaro or arctic ice sheets seem to be taken as an indication that the overall IPCC report or gist of Gore's movie or whatever else is all tainted.

Or to take another example, perhaps they'll question the veracity of a letter from Father Bernard offering his firsthand experience with us, from the time before we were married to his participation in the (church) wedding ceremony itself to our contact with him through the hotel's toys for kids collection each Christmas to his dinners at our home from time to time with the extended family. Probably he's just our friend, they may think, and therefore biased; perhaps he even feels he is obliged to do us a favor and bend the truth of the matter because we have tried to help out his kids, or just because of the family's past political connections, you know. If he is biased, well, the whole case may be a sham, that agent might think.

And how completely wrong that CIS agent would be. How foolish it would be to reject all the years of photo and video we can provide, and the documentation of the children's births showing our names, and the bank statements showing we have sufficient funds, and the personal reports of people who know us, just because, hey, you know, no accounts showing both our names? a letter from the priest who married us and is a friend of the family?

Do these particular, arguably unexpected or possibly biased items here and there really throw into question the validity of the entire situation?

The answer in this debate from the skeptics' side seems to be, "Yes, they clearly do."

And again it makes one ask the question, what kind of case would such a skeptic accept, then?

Steve

Is your marriage based on computer models, too?

[ryberg]

This "assault on reason" I posted on another thread earlier today is much more attractive, however:



Not exactly going to do anything to slow down warming trends, either.

Steve

[PlayadelSoul]

Wow, I found an IPCC member who is skeptical.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance

Slim models

To me, the elevation of climate models to the status of definitive tools for prediction has led to the temptation to be over-confident.

Here is how this can work.

Computer models are the basic tools which are used to estimate the future climate. Many scientists (ie the mere mortals) have been captivated by an IPCC image in which the actual global surface temperature curve for the 20th Century is overlaid on a band of model simulations of temperature for the same period.




Models 'key' to climate future
The observations seem to fit right in the middle of the model band, implying that models are formulated so capably and completely that they can reproduce the past very well.

Without knowing much about climate models, any group will be persuaded by this image to believe models are quite precise.

However, there is a fundamental flaw with this thinking.

You see, every modeller knew what the answer was ahead of time. (Those groans you just heard were the protestations of my colleagues in the modelling community - they know what's coming).

In my view, on the other hand, this persuasive image is not a scientific experiment at all. The agreement displayed is just as likely to do with clever software engineering as to the first principles of science.

The proper and objective experiment is to test model output against quantities not known ahead of time.

[ryberg]

And they'll find my wife and I don't have joint accounts. But it's hardly surprising that her case would not be perfect, either.

Jacko has a good point there, you know: it does seem rather like you're arguing for putting more weight on small parts of the evidence here and there than on the larger body of the evidence...

At that same time, again the skeptics know ahead of time how they will view the outcome: if it suggest global warming is a valid concern, the people doing the research must have been biased.

Steve

[ryberg]

Incidentally, it seems only fair and balanced®* to post the link to, and also an excerpt from, the companion article that has a rather different view:

Orthodox science has difficulty predicting the future, especially if we have experienced nothing like it in the past.

Computer models are essential to these predictions, but to many non-scientists, they are an unknown quantity.

However, a new development in the Fourth Assessment is that it concludes, from an examination of 29,000 data sets, that the impacts of climate change occurring now can be observed everywhere on our planet.

It is evident in its impacts on animals, plants, water and ice.

This is traditional science-based observation and measurement, not "arm-waving" with computer models.

Steve

*I now owe Fox a quarter.

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

And they'll find my wife and I don't have joint accounts. But it's hardly surprising that her case would not be perfect, either.

Jacko has a good point there, you know: it does seem rather like you're arguing for putting more weight on small parts of the evidence here and there than on the larger body of the evidence...

At that same time, again the skeptics know ahead of time how they will view the outcome: if it suggest global warming is a valid concern, the people doing the research must have been biased.

Steve

The whole basis of the science is based on computer models. Ever seen (I know you have) the computer models for a hurricane? Anything over 48 hours, and they are all over the place. Now, take that and multiply it by thousands (if not more) and make sure to add a bunch of unknowns into the equation. You going to bet the farm?

[PlayadelSoul]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Incidentally, it seems only fair and balanced®* to post the link to, and also an excerpt from, the companion article that has a rather different view:

Steve

*I now owe Fox a quarter.

Steve, do you know the ideal mean temperature of the Earth? Does anyone claim to have this knowledge?

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

The whole basis of the science is based on computer models. Ever seen (I know you have) the computer models for a hurricane? Anything over 48 hours, and they are all over the place. Now, take that and multiply it by thousands (if not more) and make sure to add a bunch of unknowns into the equation. You going to bet the farm?

Wow..that is pretty complex...we best be scared of it!



And "bet the farm"? Well if you mean to move along more quickly the development of better technological solutions to more quickly bring alternative energy sources on line and to much more quickly improve conservation solutions so we can all save money as the price of energy rises? Well...yes, I'll bet some money on that...I don't think we have to put the whole farm up for sale to move along a bit more quickly.

[PlayadelSoul]

BTW, Steve, most skeptics do not deny that the termperature is changing. No scientist will deny that temperatures have always changed. Observing that change does not make it manmade.

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

BTW, Steve, most skeptics do not deny that the termperature is changing. No scientist will deny that temperatures have always changed. Observing that change does not make it manmade.

And of course, the fact that the climate is changing is not what all the studying is about....the studies are ultimately determining human impact on that change......gosh, why do we have to keep going over this over and over again?

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

The whole basis of the science is based on computer models...

That excerpt precisely contradicts any such claim. So did the comments of the government's Susan Solomon when the IPCC report was announced back in February or whenever:

"The evidence for warming having happened on the planet is unequivocal . . . We can see that in rising air temperatures, we can see it in changes in snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. We can see it in global sea rise. It's unequivocal," she said.

The over focus on computer modeling seems to be a bogeyman strategy based not only on the questionable but conventional "wisdom" that computers are not to be trusted at all ("They'll screw up anything just royally, you know -- wait till you hear this anecdote, America!") its value in terms of diversion from the simple observation and measuring of physical phenomena and changes which are in fact what seem to make up the basis of this science and most others (and which it would be understandably harder to try to make people doubt too much).

In answer to your other question, I can only throw back the one from before: do you know how many deaths or displaced refugees from coastal areas or other types of global dismay and conflict due to global warming are acceptable?

Steve

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

BTW, Steve, most skeptics do not deny that the termperature is changing. No scientist will deny that temperatures have always changed. Observing that change does not make it manmade.

The group of climate experts unanimously linked -- with "90 percent" certainty [actually 90-99%] -- the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. [from article on same original IPCC announcement]

About what other scientific claims can it be said that a group of thousands of international researchers were unanimous with a 90-99% degree of certainty? Maybe that the earth is a sphere, or that evolution, not creationism, is on target in terms of explaining natural biology, or that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen.. perhaps that the moon orbits the earth...

But already I find that this is precisely where I came in, so perhaps it's a good time to resume avoiding these discussions, again.

Steve