Climate continues to change.

[ms_ann_thrope]

Which isn't too far off, there are models that show that melting ice and the influx of cold, fresh water into the sea could actually cool the globe dramatically at least for a century or two.

We should cuddle to stay warm.

 

[sethp]

We should cuddle to stay warm.

We should!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Aww, you can just tell they love the little guy.

That's cute, Thor. I'm smiling like

Of course, there's no third pic in that series, because the penguin disemboweled the photographer with all the others. They're more aggressive than they look.

 

[KingOrfeo]

An extensive list of arguments. Unfortunately you initiate it by locking down any critizims with a massive ad hominem attack on the opposition.

Basically you are opening with a clear message that people who won't accept anything that follows as absolute gospel and approaches information from "totally un-biased" sources like GreenPeace with a certain amount of skepticism are suffering from "denialism" and bla bla bla...

Despite the fact that it makes the choir cheer, it's an unsound debate strategy because it turns your list of arguments into an all-or-nothing package - either I accept everything as the undisputed truth or I'm a "denialist." A word invented by the same kind of people who calls somebody who believes in the theory of evolution a "Darwinist."

Because if you can put an "-ist" on people and an "-ism" on their opinions it's so much easier to dismiss them...

No, the unsound debate strategy is the one you're using now.

It's called strawmanning.

Also projection. Everything you say there can fairly be applied to the deniers, but not to the climate scientists or those who believe them.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Definitely.

It's interesting how the "environmental activists" of the seventies who fought so hard against nuclear power ended up causing a massive increase in the usage of fossil fuel. A classic example of emotionally founded environmentalism gone bad.

Well, it's really more of a choice-of-evils problem.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Which isn't too far off, there are models that show that melting ice and the influx of cold, fresh water into the sea could actually cool the globe dramatically at least for a century or two.

Cite?

I do know that global warming might cool Europe, because it would disrupt the Gulf Stream, without which western Europe would have the same climate as Russia (Rome is on the same latitude as New York; London's latitude is the same as Newfoundland's, practically Arctic).

 

[thør]

Aww, you can just tell they love the little guy.

That's cute, Thor. I'm smiling like

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/worldrebecca/PolarBearParty.gif

 

[KingOrfeo]

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m71/worldrebecca/PolarBearParty.gif

Those are some well-traveled bears!

 

[thør]

Those are some well-traveled bears!

They are adapting.

 

[StrangeLife]

No, the unsound debate strategy is the one you're using now.

It's called strawmanning.

Also projection. Everything you say there can fairly be applied to the deniers, but not to the climate scientists or those who believe them.

No its not a strawman argument because I'm not attributing anything to you that you didn't explicitly write in your post. But said post was a catch-22 argument giving me only two choices - agree with everything you state or be branded a "denialist."

And we all know how them thar "denialists" think, right?

In other words, you started out by attacking my personal credibility even before putting forward a single factual argument. Thats why I called you on using an ad hominem strategy.

Sorry King, but you're busted.



As far as the scientists go, I'm not questioning their efforts. I'm merely pointing out that their predictions are too imprecise to be taken as gospel - not because they aren't competent, but because the data and processing power available is insufficient to back up the claims.

 

[phrodeau]

Definitely.

It's interesting how the "environmental activists" of the seventies who fought so hard against nuclear power ended up causing a massive increase in the usage of fossil fuel. A classic example of emotionally founded environmentalism gone bad.

It's also interesting how you characterize the increased use of fossil fuels as "bad".

 

[KingOrfeo]

No its not a strawman argument because I'm not attributing anything to you that you didn't explicitly write in your post. But said post was a catch-22 argument giving me only two choices - agree with everything you state or be branded a "denialist."

No, what I posted was a lengthy article from RationalWiki carefully refuting denialist arguments point by point, with scientific arguments and citations for each point. You now have a third choice: to refute the refutations, point by point, with scientific arguments and citations for each point, if you can; which really would be the only appropriate response on your part.

As far as the scientists go, I'm not questioning their efforts. I'm merely pointing out that their predictions are too imprecise to be taken as gospel - not because they aren't competent, but because the data and processing power available is insufficient to back up the claims.

Scientists are very much aware of the limitations of their data and tools. They have to be; anyone who publishes a new hypothesis must be prepared to see it subjected to vigorous and rigorous criticism by other scientists in the field. That's called peer review. The fact that climatologists, being so aware, have nevertheless arrived at a consensus ought to give it that much more weight.

 

[StrangeLife]

It's also interesting how you characterize the increased use of fossil fuels as "bad".

Well, of course using fossil fuels where other options would be more efficient, cheaper and have a lower environmental impact is bad. On top of that, fossil fuel is a finite resource and sorely needed for mobile use, where we currently don't have any viable alternatives.

As I said, I've got no set agenda. I'm not an environmentalist nor am I a "denialist."

 

[StrangeLife]

No, what I posted was a lengthy article from RationalWiki carefully refuting denialist arguments point by point, with scientific arguments and citations for each point. You now have a third choice: to refute the refutations, point by point, with scientific arguments and citations for each point, if you can; which really would be the only appropriate response on your part.

If I may refresh your memory. You started the post with the following:

Global warming denialism:

"Don't talk to me of independent study or scientific trial/I'm in denial, deep in denial/And as the waters rise around me/I'll just hold my breath and say it isn't so!"

—"Denial Tango," Men with Day Jobs[1]

Global warming denialism refers to claims that global warming: a) Isn't happening, b) Isn't caused by humans, or c) isn't significant.

This has nothing to do with science or logic in any form. It's name-calling, to use a popular term, and polarizes everything else you wrote. The reason for this is, that RationalWiki is not a repository for scientific knowledge, but a resource for debaters in an adversarial environment.

That's what I was trying to tell you by pointing to the "-ism" thing. It's a counter measure against an equally biased opponent in an adversarial process. This is what RationalWiki was made for. Heck, I've used these tricks myself when I've been on panels opposite creationists, book-banners and other religious nut-cases. Trust me - I know how it works.



So yes, I could run through the long list and refute several of those arguments, but...

- It would take an extensive amount of time and work (see "Gish-gallop").

- It would be an exercise in futility because you wouldn't accept it anyway.

- I would end up with the problem that I can't prove a negative, e.g. I can't "prove" that the doomsday prophets are wrong. I have as little data as they do.

- Fundamentally this is a philosophical argumentation,- at least until science catches up.

Scientists are very much aware of the limitations of their data and tools. They have to be; anyone who publishes a new hypothesis must be prepared to see it subjected to vigorous and rigorous criticism by other scientists in the field. That's called peer review. The fact that climatologists, being so aware, have nevertheless arrived at a consensus ought to give it that much more weight.

Once there was also a consensus behind the fact that the Earth was flat and that head aches were caused by internal cranial over-pressure and could be relieved by drilling a hole in the skull to let the excess air out.

It sounds preposterous by todays standards, but back then we didn't know better. We didn't have the necessary scientific data to prove that the Earth was round or that head aches were caused by other factors. So the scientists did the best they could with the limited knowledge they had and reached a wrong consensus.

Today we have a similar situation in climate research. Limited data and insufficient technology. Why should we trust this consensus? In the end the Earth turned out to not be flat, right?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Once there was also a consensus behind the fact that the Earth was flat and that head aches were caused by internal cranial over-pressure and could be relieved by drilling a hole in the skull to let the excess air out.

It sounds preposterous by todays standards, but back then we didn't know better. We didn't have the necessary scientific data to prove that the Earth was round or that head aches were caused by other factors. So the scientists did the best they could with the limited knowledge they had and reached a wrong consensus.

Today we have a similar situation in climate research. Limited data and insufficient technology. Why should we trust this consensus? In the end the Earth turned out to not be flat, right?

And the world worked with that "theory" until it was proven wrong as well they should have. That answer worked for all the questions they had at the moment and when it didn't it was abandoned. If you are correct we should STILL behave as if global warming is real until the science "catches up" and that's working on the incredibly humble or arrogant depending on your point of view that the science isn't accurate right now. However science does not and cannot work on the assumption it will ever be perfect and instead working with what you know now. Can you imagine if we did that for anything else?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Global warming denialism:

"Don't talk to me of independent study or scientific trial/I'm in denial, deep in denial/And as the waters rise around me/I'll just hold my breath and say it isn't so!"

—"Denial Tango," Men with Day Jobs[1]

Global warming denialism refers to claims that global warming: a) Isn't happening, b) Isn't caused by humans, or c) isn't significant.

This has nothing to do with science or logic in any form. It's name-calling, to use a popular term, and polarizes everything else you wrote.

It's not name calling, it's a fair and unobjectionable definition of climate-change denialism. Got to define terms first.

As for the song-quote epigraph, it's not scientific argument and does not pretend to be, but it is certainly not inappropriate for the editors to include it, and it's just too good not to use.

The reason for this is, that RationalWiki is not a repository for scientific knowledge, but a resource for debaters in an adversarial environment.

That's what I was trying to tell you by pointing to the "-ism" thing. It's a counter measure against an equally biased opponent in an adversarial process. This is what RationalWiki was made for. Heck, I've used these tricks myself when I've been on panels opposite creationists, book-banners and other religious nut-cases. Trust me - I know how it works.

Kids, can you say "false equivalency"?

Of course RationalWiki has a definite mission statement, that's no secret, it's on the welcome page:

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2.Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3.Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

But you're a fool if you can't see the essential difference between that kind of "bias" and that of creationists.

So yes, I could run through the long list and refute several of those arguments, but...

- It would take an extensive amount of time and work (see "Gish-gallop").

What you are describing is not what the term means; it is simply what any scientist or any serious student of a scientific question such as climate change has to do.

- It would be an exercise in futility because you wouldn't accept it anyway.

I would, on any particular point where you could show persuasive and peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Of course, I might argue as to how persuasive it is, and certainly I would and should dismiss if it came from the Heartland Institute or something similar.

- I would end up with the problem that I can't prove a negative, e.g. I can't "prove" that the doomsday prophets are wrong. I have as little data as they do.

No, you have considerably less; that is, you lack their expertise to interpret it.

- Fundamentally this is a philosophical argumentation,- at least until science catches up.

What on Earth are you talking about?! There is nothing "philosophical" in a non-scientific sense about the question of whether human activities are causing climate change. That is purely a scientific question. And science is way ahead of you.

Once there was also a consensus behind the fact that the Earth was flat . . .

Oh, Og, "Bob" and Allah, don't go there!

The phrase "science was wrong before" (or variations thereof, such as "science has been wrong in the past") is a rhetorical bullshitting technique often invoked by cranks to reject scientific consensus ranging from evolution to global warming. It usually works like this:

Alice: A scientific consensus has built around theory X and it is supported by many lines of robust evidence.
Bob: Ah, but science has been wrong before.

It is an example of the continuum fallacy.

Flaws

"[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

—Isaac Asimov

Usually (or at least often) "science was wrong before" is used to defend the existence of a disproven phenomenon - a bit of alternative medicine, perpetual motion, crank theories of everything, faster-than-light travel... the list is really endless for where this has been applied before. The usual examples of science being wrong (like the geocentric worldview that "science" used to hold) were theories that were in no way disprovable at the time, much in the way that string theory cannot be readily disproved at this time. Many alternative medical practices on the other hand have been carefully shown to be bullshit in one study after another - no additional information will suddenly invalidate these conclusions. When used like this, the "science was wrong before" trope is effectively like suggesting that our observations that gravity is an attractive force are wrong, because one day in the future we might just see something go floating up instead of falling down, and therefore homeopathy works.

So while it is true that several believed-to-be-true theories turned out to be wrong, that doesn't mean that theories that have already been proven wrong might suddenly turn out to be right.

Missing the point

The logic behind this "argument" is fallacious in a number of ways. Primarily it misrepresents how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of "right" and "wrong." To describe outdated or discredited theories as "wrong" misses a major subtlety in science: discarded theories aren't really wrong, they just fail to explain new evidence, and more often than not the new theory to come along is almost the same as the old one but with some extensions, caveats or alternatives. Often enough, these "new" theories are already in existence and just waiting in the wings ready for new evidence to come along and differentiate them. For example, the fact that quantum theory doesn't explain gravity does not invalidate the Schrödinger equation or the quantisation of energy, it merely says that the current formulation of the theory is incomplete and there are modifications to quantum theory already being formulated, ready for when the next big leap in observational evidence occurs. Another example could be if the Higgs boson wasn't found: the Standard Model would have to be revised, but that doesn't mean decades of research would be thrown out the window.

The fact that science can be "wrong" in this way is a feature, not a bug, as one of the differences between science and pseudoscience is that science is self-correcting whereas pseudoscience continues to put forth the same debunked points over and over again. These pseudoscientists present "science" as a monolithic entity with no difference between different types of science and the uncertainties associated with each field. For example, an economic study of the minimum wage that uses the scientific method cannot be replicated as easily as, say, a basic chemistry experiment that can be repeated in a lab - like finding the boiling point of a chemical. Thus, the economic study may not be "wrong," but has a lower degree of certainty attached to it than the chemistry experiment. Inability to make this distinction is often the result of the failure to think in a Bayesian fashion, in which the subtleties of errors are more accurately appreciated. Thus the "science was wrong before" argument it conflates different types of errors within science, confusing incompleteness of theories with being outright wrong. This, as Isaac Asimov called it in his essay The Relativity of Wrong,[2] is a form of being wronger than wrong.

Basic logical flaws

But more than just being a complete misrepresentation of science, claiming that "science was wrong before" is flawed at the even basic logical level. It can be considered a non sequitur or red herring because it usually has nothing to do with the subject at hand. For example, the fact that phlogiston was wrong has no bearing on whether or not evolution is correct, and the observation that neutrinos may travel faster than light has absolutely no relevance to homeopathy,[3] as that is already governed by a certain evidence base.

This is also a false dichotomy; someone using the argument is apparently suggesting that all of science and rationalist thought must be perfectly correct the first time or their selected woo-du-jour must be correct. Using a reductio ad absurdum, the argument can apply to any and all forms of science and technology. Therefore, there would be no way to test the validity of any claims besides "other ways of knowing." But no one would say, "I'm not going to drive in a car! Science has been wrong before!"

For these reasons, "science was wrong before" is an objection that is not even wrong, and tends to be used as a last-ditch escape hatch when the crank has run out of concrete objections or talking points.

Uses and examples

##This canard seems to be particularly popular among alternative medicine woo-meisters, as they can easily point to any failed medication or treatment (Vioxx[wp] is one of the most commonly used,[4] but thalidomide works well too[5]) and say "Look, science was wrong before, so buy my quackery!" Some woo-meisters take this to extreme lengths and reject the scientific method entirely.[6]
##Creationists usually use it in reference to the Piltdown Man — though this is rife with many problems, not least of all the fact that it was exposed by science and not by, say, creationists.
##Free energy types love it as well. It tends to play into cold fusion and other free energy suppression conspiracy theories.
##The gambit appeared when neutrinos were suspected of travelling faster than light. Homeopaths played it perfectly straight[3] while some Above Top Secret posters seemed to indicate it would change our thinking of UFOs and other phenomena.[7]

Failing at even being fallacious

Oftentimes, extremely factually-challenged (or intellectually dishonest) cranks will spin an urban legend, myth, or misinterpretation of a historical event as a case where "science was wrong before":
##"Science was wrong before" is often found alongside the Galileo gambit. The obvious problem here is that Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic Church, not by "science".
##In many cases, old theories were not proven wrong, but only shown to be incomplete. For example, the discovery of quantum mechanics didn't prove classical or Newtonian mechanics wrong, but it did show that classical mechanics did not hold true in every case.
##A common talking point among global warming deniers is the so-called prediction of "global cooling" in the 1970s. There were in fact scientists who argued for global cooling; however, a survey of the literature as a whole shows that the majority of papers published even back then argued for warming.[8][9]
##Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb is often invoked to handwave away any concerns about overpopulation or sometimes even all environmental issues.
##Anti-environmentalists in general love to abuse this gambit. Need to write a good bullshit tract on global warming? Dig up old denialist literature on any recent environmental problem (acid rain, DDT, ozone depletion, take your pick) and use it to announce that "science was wrong before." Anything by S. Fred Singer should do the trick.

Realism versus anti-realism in science

While "science was wrong before" is most often used in service of science denialism, though superficially similar, it should not be confused with a traditional argument found in the philosophy of science leveled against scientific realism, namely, the pessimistic meta-induction from past falsification of accepted scientific theories, which roughly goes like this: Since our best scientific theories have in the past been shown to be largely false, it is probable that our current accepted scientific theories are in large measure false. Therefore, we ought to be scientific anti-realists.[10] The realist vs. anti-realist debate concerns whether the theoretical entities (e.g. micro-physical particles, fields, etc.) postulated by our best scientific theories correspond to real entities or whether said entities, and the wider mathematical framework in which they are situated, are merely empirically adequate (i.e. computational tools via which we make successful predictions).[11]

Needless to say, this debate in the philosophy of science is much more complex and nuanced than shouting "Phlogiston! Hah, where is your science now?"

- Today we have a similar situation in climate research. Limited data and insufficient technology.

You are not qualified to make that judgment.

Why should we trust this consensus?

Because it has held up despite massive scientific scrutiny and the opposition of vested economic interests.

- In the end the Earth turned out to not be flat, right?

No scientist ever argued for the flat-Earth model. No philosopher either, AFAIK.

 

[StrangeLife]

If you are correct we should STILL behave as if global warming is real until the science "catches up" and that's working on the incredibly humble or arrogant depending on your point of view that the science isn't accurate right now. However science does not and cannot work on the assumption it will ever be perfect and instead working with what you know now. Can you imagine if we did that for anything else?

Good point - you're right of course.

However the difference is that we have a lot more "power" at our disposal today and our actions have more of an impact. Therefore we need to weigh them more carefully and require a higher degree of certainty before initiating them.

At the same time our scientific methods are also a lot more mature than they were during the Middle Ages. Among the things we have learned since then is, to evaluate the quality of our theories based on their testability. This is where the climate arguments fall short, because we can't test them - we don't have sufficient knowledge at this point. So basically we are talking about low quality theories.

 

[KingOrfeo]

At the same time our scientific methods are also a lot more mature than they were during the Middle Ages. Among the things we have learned since then is, to evaluate the quality of our theories based on their testability. This is where the climate arguments fall short, because we can't test them - we don't have sufficient knowledge at this point. So basically we are talking about low quality theories.

Of course we can't "test" it in the sense of having, in real life, one Earth of this present year with post-industrial levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and one without, and comparing them. But many fields of sound science do not rely on controlled experimentation. They test their hypotheses in other ways. In arriving at the global-warming consensus, climatologists have drawn inferences from observed data, from knowledge of how climates work, and from knowledge of the chemistry of greenhouse gases.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Good point - you're right of course.

However the difference is that we have a lot more "power" at our disposal today and our actions have more of an impact. Therefore we need to weigh them more carefully and require a higher degree of certainty before initiating them.

At the same time our scientific methods are also a lot more mature than they were during the Middle Ages. Among the things we have learned since then is, to evaluate the quality of our theories based on their testability. This is where the climate arguments fall short, because we can't test them - we don't have sufficient knowledge at this point. So basically we are talking about low quality theories.

We undoubtedly have more power, and more experience today than we had in the past. I'm not certain that means we need to weigh them more carefully or even what that phrase means in a practical sense. We have more people with better tools and can come to "better" conclusions faster.

It's not that we lack sufficient knowledge at this point and you're incorrect about the theories not being testable. For starters many parts of it are "testable" by which you mean in a laboratory with a control following established process. By that method however gravity, evolution and a great many other things are utterly unknowable.

I'm not for full speed ahead on everything but it seems that the real problem with Global Warming is that it's directly tied into a lot of things. Smog has lots of issues with it that have nothing to do with Global Warming but not having air I can chew shouldn't require me having to convince you that the seas will rise and drown your grandchildren. BUT IT DOES. I shouldn't have convince you that oil is a finite resource not a renewable one and if we hit the end without a plan it's gonna be one enormous shock to the economy. 2007's brief period of $4.50 gas will look like a pleasant walk in the park. BUT I MUST. Because the vast majority of (not you apparently) of Global Warming deniers don't seem to really believe in any of these things.

 

[VaticanAssassin]

Of course we can't "test" it in the sense of having, in real life, one Earth of this present year with post-industrial levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and one without, and comparing them. But many fields of sound science do not rely on controlled experimentation. They test their hypotheses in other ways. In arriving at the global-warming consensus, climatologists have drawn inferences from observed data, from knowledge of how climates work, and from knowledge of the chemistry of greenhouse gases.

Ok, I will give you credit for no copy and paste.

But as this consensus you speak of has been proving incorrect I will still have to call you one dumb motherfucker.

 

[KingOrfeo]

But as this consensus you speak of has been proving incorrect . . .

How so?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sometimes deniers, when they impress me at all, impress me like this:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/revolutionary.png

 

[StrangeLife]

It's not name calling, it's a fair and unobjectionable definition of climate-change denialism. Got to define terms first.

No it's neither fair nor unobjectionable King.

Based on a very limited knowledge of me or my background, you are attempting to squeeze me into a box so I can fit one of the standard target profiles of the pre-cooked attack solutions from RationalWiki. Once you know know which hose to pick, it's simply a matter of turning on the spray and let it rip. Your thinking has been done for you - it's like buying a holiday package with hotel, sightseeing and Disneyland tickets.

Except that I don't fit any of those profiles. I'm not a denialist - I just treasure my objectivity and am not afraid of standing outside either camp rather than compromise my logic in order to fit in.

As I said, I've used it myself - it's a convenient resource and the pseudo-scientists/religious nuts are using a similar system, so it's only fair that we as skeptics have one as well. But it wasn't built for the purpose of any real discussion - it was built in order to win public debates in an adverserial setting - e.g. a situation where you go into the room with a certainty that you cannot sway the opposing person one iota regardless of what you do or say. So you attack his credibility instead and use that to win the audience.

But you're a fool if you can't see the essential difference between that kind of "bias" and that of creationists.

I compared the strategy to that of the creationists - not the arguments themselves. Which is fair, since they invented it.

I have tried debating with actual scientific arguments on several occasions and failed miserably every time. The problem is, that they don't lend themselves well to an adversarial setting because people prefer absolute truths, and science invariably operates with probabilities which can be hard for a layman to understand.

Layman: "Could a 4th gen nuclear power plant suffer a catastrophic meltdown?"

Scientist: "Yes, but it would require a very unlikely combination of events which makes the probability of that ever happening equal to the probability that the Earth will be pulverized by a large meteor within the next two hours."

Layman: "In other words, you're admitting that it can happen?"


See the problem? The only weapon against this strategy is going the route of absolutes and forgetting all about uncertainties and reservations. You decide on one truth and you stick to it like glue. Because the other guy is ready to leverage any opening you may provide him.

What you are describing is not what the term means; it is simply what any scientist or any serious student of a scientific question such as climate change has to do.

RationalWikis definition is of course absolute, but normally there are degrees to the definition. Your arguments were not pseudoscience - they were simply a stream of pre-cooked complex theories that would take you an hour to copy, but that would take me weeks of research and calculations to counter. Had I done so, you would have zoomed in on a few keywords - looked them up in RationalWiki - and parotted another round of pre-cooked absolutes for me to spend another few weeks of work to counter. And so on and so forth. An exercise in futility for me.

And yes - I have played around with AGCM's and other GDFL-models and I am fully aware of their strengths and limitations. I have watched a large MPPA mainframe crap-out trying to provide an accurate six days simulation of a simple LAM, and we are talking about a global simulation spanning centuries! I mean, c'mon! Yes you can do it - sure - but not with any reasonable degree of accuracy. Anybody claiming otherwise must be from another planet with computational resources and legacy data far beyond ours.

I would, on any particular point where you could show persuasive and peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Of course, I might argue as to how persuasive it is, and certainly I would and should dismiss if it came from the Heartland Institute or something similar.

Here we go again - you want me to prove a negative. I can't and neither can anybody else. The only way would be for me to run my own model and compare the results, but that would suffer from the same limitations as the current models: Not enough reliable data.

No, you have considerably less; that is, you lack their expertise to interpret it.

Yes, when I noticed my intended "classification" I immediately suspected that you believed me to argue from a position of personal incredulity - as in "I don't understand this, so it must be wrong."

Actually it's the other way around - I understand it only too well. Sometimes I kinda wish I didn't. Life is so much simpler when you're running with the crowd.

What on Earth are you talking about?! There is nothing "philosophical" in a non-scientific sense about the question of whether human activities are causing climate change. That is purely a scientific question. And science is way ahead of you.

If you make broad claims for which there is no possibility of mathematical proof, you are effectively making a philosophical choice.

You are not qualified to make that judgment.

You don't need a phD in meteorology in order to spot the elephants stomping around in the room. Anybody with scientific training can do that. Subsequently you can choose to ignore them of course, which is what many seem to have chosen to do. Alas ignoring problems rarely make them go away.

Because it has held up despite massive scientific scrutiny and the opposition of vested economic interests.

Make no mistake. This is a highly politisized area on both sides. It's not about seeking knowledge - it's about winning. Do you seriously believe that any argumentation, regardless of proof, would sway either side? In that case I have a bridge to sell you...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Meanwhile, it's February and still snowing. It is 14 degrees right now and I just salted the driveway.


We're supposed to get snow for the rest of the week off and on.


It just does not happen here.


Black Boxes: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/how_leftists_account_for_climate_stability.html

 

[zipman]

Meanwhile, it's February and still snowing. It is 14 degrees right now and I just salted the driveway.


We're supposed to get snow for the rest of the week off and on.


It just does not happen here.


Black Boxes: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/how_leftists_account_for_climate_stability.html

There's a reason they call it "Global Warming" and not "East Bumfuck Missouri Warming."

Just sayin'