Ocean Concerns

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Global warming aside, what will happen as oil and gas gets harder to procure and rarer is we will become more efficient, and will develop alternate forms of energy. I believe fusion is possible, it may take as much as the Manhattan project did to do it, but I think it’s solvable.
An issue to me is that petroleum is far more than a energy source, it’s a raw material that quite a lot of our modern life is made from, and not just plastic.
I’d like to see petroleum energy become far more expensive than it is, cause I think that is the only thing that will cause us to become more efficient, but until then we will want bigger and bigger SUV’s and bigger and bigger houses, and of course bigger and bigger boats.

Oh that's a good one.
Just like the Population Bomb folks where proven wrong, so will the MMGWC be because they don't understand or take into account the technological improvements and advances in technology. The Problems that will kill us today will be solved and the snake oil salesmen will move onto the next Crisis de Jour. Remember, never let a crisis go to waste, even a fake one.

[transmitterdan]

When someone claims that humans are the dominate driver of the climate then all reason has gone out the window. If the sun somehow magically did not shine for 5 days the climate would be uninhabitable. People could never approach that level of climate "influence".

To claim humans are the primary influence on climate change is a different kettle of fish. Much harder to prove thus it has to be a consensus opinion.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Pegu Club

and the microphone hits the floor....

Yes excellent post, and very true the other critical concerns are at least as urgent.

Flat earthers are ridiculous, should be publicly called out as such, much more often and more strongly than at present.

Any anti-vaccine nuts here as well?

___
" We must trust that the intelligence that has allowed humanity to stave off death, make medical and engineering breakthroughs, reach the stars, build wondrous temples, and write complex tales will save us again. We must nurse the conviction that we can use the gentle graces of science and reason to prove that the truth cannot be vanquished so easily. To those who would repudiate intelligence, we must say: you will*not*conquer and we*will*find a way to convince. "

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/10...-on-knowledge/

[conachair]

Lots of thread drift so one more chance for the panel to explain why CO2 doesn't do any thing.

If it doesn't - why not?

If it doesn't - what is driving the rapid rise in heat content?

If it does nothing - it means throwing out bucket loads of extremely successful science.

Over to you guys..

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

As your Wiki link explains in more detail, an ad hominem argument is one that is fallacious because it attacks the character, morals, motives, etc. of the person rather than that person's ideas or argument. In other words, it's irrelevant along with being disrespectful and even rude. But if that same person is demonstrating obvious bias in presenting their arguments then challenging that bias cannot be ad hominem because it's not fallacious. On the contrary, it's directly relevant to the credibility of the positions begin asserted.

You apparently didn't read the Wikipedia article on ad hominem argument very carefully. There are both fallacious and non-fallacious versions of ad hominem arguments. StuM's post was most certainly ad hominem, as he attacked the source without commenting on the validity of the underlying topic. If you think StuM's ad hominem argument was non-fallacious I'd be interested in knowing why you think so?

Thus far I don't recall seeing you quote many of the "scientific arguments" you claim are lacking from StuM. Instead, your sources mostly seem derived from media outlets who comment on those scientific arguments, and are known to have their own bias. No different, generally speaking, from those on the other side of the political divide. There are no rules against using whatever sources we are comfortable with, but who exactly are you trying to influence? Either way, exposing the bias or predisposition of any source can only add to the truthfulness of the debate, whether people want to believe it's relevant or not. In any event, doing so is definitely not ad hominem.

Most of my media article posts include a link to the underlying scientific study, thus anyone can read for themselves whether or not either the media article, or my summation, is correct or not. That is FAR more than most posters on this this thread do, including yourself, so I'm not sure what your beef is? It actually seems you prefer the often-vacuous bloviations of your non-expert cruising buddies, to the carefully-studied research of climate scientists.

If you think the underlying scientific study of any of the media articles I post is incorrect, please present the counter-evidence. Otherwise, I hope you will not be offended if I take your opinion, or that of your fellow deniers, to be of no scientific value.

[Exile]

Since your entire post is recent & available for all to read, I thought I'd summarize & truncate things a bit. No offense intended.

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

the unprecedented growth in population and (false) economy is almost wholly a result of fossil fuel production and consumption, and that there is no replacement, now or on the horizon, to replace the sheer quantity of energy available from the use of those fuels.

Nice to read a little dose of reality for a change, whether we approve of that reality or not. Not sure why a fossil fuel based economy is characterized as "false," however.

* * *

Unfounded Alarmist Climate Predictions:

Google: "https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8"

And then google: https://www.google.com/search?client....0.uuY086ZhXXk

At this point you can take your pick btwn. skeptical science, climate depot, the guardian, daily caller, mother jones, etc., etc., depending on what side of the political divide you would like to promote. Can't you think of a more effective way of debating this?

Using Human Recorded History:

I'm not qualified to debate whether scientific data "is manipulated or cherry-picked," or "to impugn climate science." The point is that it's illogical & misleading for non-scientists to repeatedly point to weather & other physical occurrences around the world as evidence of catastrophic CC without comparing them to other periods in the history of the planet when fossil fuel emissions were not a factor. The issue is not just whether we are in a warming phase, but how much of our CO2 emissions is contributing and at what rate. Simply saying that "this is the worst in recorded history" doesn't answer the question.


Measuring Devices From Earlier Technologies':

Science, unlike politics and mass communications, is generally self-correcting; it cannot function without a fairly rigid system of internal self-policing. Nothing 'qualifies' me as anything, my 'confidence' comes from the trust in the checks and balances inherent in the way the system works and my ability to think soberly about multi-dimensional problems (sorry about that). Do you worry about the rationalizations and statistical shortcuts inherent in the application of any other science?

Of course I do, most notably in the medical field where many areas remain very much trial & error, and there are many financial & other motives for various players in the system not to always act in the best interests of patients. The science that says smoking greatly increases the risk of heart disease & cancer, or that surgery is required to replace a defective heart valve or arthritic hip, is settled. Much of the cause & treatment for mental illness, for ex., is not. It's similarly settled science that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect which can contribute to warming, but the amount of warming & severity of its impact on the planet and its human population is not, imho.

Scientists Who Don't Follow the Party Line:

I guess we're back to "debating the science" through the use of polls again. Here's a graph from wiki if you'd like purporting to show that 16% of climate scientists believe humans have had little or no influence on GW. I am assuming that, by their own statements on the matter, neither Drs. Curry, Spencer nor Christy would be included in that 16%. I'll leave the counting up of actual numbers to you, but don't forget to distinguish btwn scientists who hold opinions everywhere btwn humans having no role, to some role, to a significant role, to a catastrophic role, and everything in btwn with all of its caveats, exceptions & provisos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...raph_3Path.svg

[john61ct]

> It actually seems you prefer the often-vacuous bloviations of your non-expert cruising buddies, to the carefully-studied research of climate scientists.

But you see the know-nothings have been vaccinated against truth.

Any specialist qualification, relying on evidence-based research is "elitist", “The experts are terrible”

Can't trust Yale because Bushes and Clinton came from there.

If it is in a traditional journalistic outlet, that's liberal lamestream media.

Huge resources and very high level propaganda skills have very intentionally been poured into spreading these ideas, cementing them into conviction until that is the world view of massive segments of the population.

Most conservatives in America now believe tertiary education is actually bad for the nation!

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

You apparently didn't read the Wikipedia article on ad hominem argument very carefully. There are both fallacious and non-fallacious versions of ad hominem arguments. StuM's post was most certainly ad hominem, as he attacked the source without commenting on the validity of the underlying topic. If you think StuM's ad hominem argument was non-fallacious I'd be interested in knowing why you think so?

By challenging the obvious bias of this and every other source you quote from, Stu exposed your bias. This has nothing to do with you personally, other than showing the reader what your bias likely is. Having a bias is just human nature, and most of us have it one way or the other. You can choose to try and surmount your own bias by at least gaining an appreciation of where the other side might be coming from, or you can continue being unpersuasive to anyone outside your own choir.

Most of my media article posts include a link to the underlying scientific study, thus anyone can read for themselves whether or not either the media article, or my summation, is correct or not. That is FAR more than most posters on this this thread do, including yourself, so I'm not sure what your beef is? It actually seems you prefer the often-vacuous bloviations of your non-expert cruising buddies, to the carefully-studied research of climate scientists.

Now THAT's ad hominem!

If you think the underlying scientific study of any of the media articles I post is incorrect, please present the counter-evidence. Otherwise, I hope you will not be offended if I take your opinion, or that of your fellow deniers, to be of no scientific value.

That one's ad hominem too, since begin skeptical (in my case) is completely different from denial, and calling someone a "denier" is likening them to people who famously denied or continue to deny the Holocaust and/or other significantly "undeniable" events in human history. But it is probably an excellent way to perhaps dissuade them from ever considering your point of view. And if that doesn't work, then to perhaps just silence them!

[Exile]

And now we've devolved back again to the stereotyping & disparaging against the "know-nothings" who's only crime is refusing to agree with opinions that others view as the "truth."

Originally Posted by john61ct

But you see the know-nothings have been vaccinated against truth.

Any specialist qualification, relying on evidence-based research is "elitist", “The experts are terrible”

Can't trust Yale because Bushes and Clinton came from there.

If it is in a traditional journalistic outlet, that's liberal lamestream media.

Huge resources and very high level propaganda skills have very intentionally been poured into spreading these ideas, cementing them into conviction until that is the world view of massive segments of the population.

Most conservatives in America now believe tertiary education is actually bad for the nation!

It's a conspiracy, and a vast right-wing one to boot! Well, we can always follow the dictates of those on a higher moral plane who know what's best for the rest of us, and go back to tending our small gardens with just enough food, clean water & pure air to survive without our "shiny things" doing such harm to Mother Gaia.

Originally Posted by john61ct

The point of carbon credits is that it a mechanism that lets the market choose which sources of that damage can be ameliorated first, most cheaply and quickest.

"Let's the market choose"?? I thought markets were the problem?

Rather than relying on an international EPA type regulatory bureaucracy make the decisions.

Just like the stock mkt, commodities, real estate, all markets really, there will be middlemen making fortunes facilitation the trading, that's how markets work.

Farmers and miners may think it's all funny money, but most modern economic activity is created from faith out of thin air these days, just moving pieces around the board, no actual resources produced or consumed.

You may want to do a little more research into this one.

Originally Posted by john61ct

Yes excellent post, and very true the other critical concerns are at least as urgent.

Flat earthers are ridiculous, should be publicly called out as such, much more often and more strongly than at present.

What do you propose? Gulag perhaps? Why not just let them speak out and debate them on the merits?

Any anti-vaccine nuts here as well?

Off with their heads too? What happened to the tolerance from the self-proclaimed "progressive" left??

[rgleason]

Conachair, I don't have a scientific answer for you. I don't know enough about the long term history, and would like to know how the carbon levels between then and now changed, but let me give you an example.

A friend of mine went to the Doctor and was told he had elevated cobalt levels, probably due to his 30 year old knee replacement. He decided to wait, and the next year the Doctor told him his cobalt level was 50x normal. My friend asked the Doctor what he should do. The Doctor simply said if it were me, I'd have an operation tomorrow. I don't need to tell you what my friend did. (When telling the story my friend laughed and said he wasn't feeling that great anyway.

I think most scientists would agree that the environment & climate is a very tough subject to study. New tools, measurements, methods and approaches are needed. Statistics and Math will be vital to understanding climate more completely.

Yes, science does not always get it right, agreed.
But that CO2 level looks a little like my friend's cobalt level.
Yes we need to be sure about cause and effect, but what else is there that would cause the changes we've noticed?

Scientific Method
Statistics in Science
Role of Statistics in Scientific Research

Scientific Method: Statistical Errors
The end of Theory: The Data Deluge makes the Scientifc Method Obsolete
Science isn't Broken

Originally Posted by conachair

Lots of thread drift so one more chance for the panel to explain why CO2 doesn't do any thing.

If it doesn't - why not?

If it doesn't - what is driving the rapid rise in heat content?

If it does nothing - it means throwing out bucket loads of extremely successful science.

Over to you guys..

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Exile

By challenging the obvious bias of this and every other source you quote from, Stu exposed your bias. This has nothing to do with you personally, other than showing the reader what your bias likely is. Having a bias is just human nature, and most of us have it one way or the other. You can choose to try and surmount your own bias by at least gaining an appreciation of where the other side might be coming from, or you can continue being unpersuasive to anyone outside your own choir.

I don't think Stu was attempting to "expose my bias". It's pretty obvious what the bias is of everyone who posts on this thread. What it appears he was trying to do was create a negative bias towards the source I was recommending. And he wasn't trying to create the negative bias by demonstrating that the source was presenting false data, or that it was making a faulty analysis. Instead, Stu tried to create a negative impression merely by inferring a vague, negative attitude towards the source without presenting any corroborating details. That is a classical example of an ad hominem attack.

Now THAT's ad hominem!

That one's ad hominem too, since begin skeptical (in my case) is completely different from denial, and calling someone a "denier" is likening them to people who famously denied or continue to deny the Holocaust and/or other significantly "undeniable" events in human history. But it is probably an excellent way to perhaps dissuade them from ever considering your point of view. And if that doesn't work, then to perhaps just silence them!

Since you are the most prolific poster on this thread, I don't think my nefarious goal to "silence you" is working very well.

But I do agree with you that I did make an ad hominem attack on you -- though I think I can justify it as a non-fallacious ad hominem argument. I've only been posting on this thread for the last three days. Yet twice you've criticized my posts simply because you don't like the source of the information I presented. Although I've asked you to explain any problems you see with the underlying scientific data or arguments, you've declined to do so. This suggests to me that you're not really interested in the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming, but instead are merely interested in being argumentative. I therefore think I am justified in pointing out to the thread that you are not a reliable source of scientific information.

[rgleason]

WUWT Watts Up with that? 10/2009 Anthony Watts
A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed will likely fail badly

Climate Home News 8/2015 Megan Darby
NASA: Sea level rise is accelerating as ice melts

Huffpost 7/2015 Kate Sheppard
Former Top NASA Scientist Predicts Catastrophic Rise In Sea Levels
Science says it has happened before.

Climate Home News 3/2016 Megan Darby
James Hansen’s apocalyptic sea level study lands to mixed reviews

I think we need to be less broad brush and more nuanced.
I think Hansen has the general outline, but clearly not the timeline.
My belief right now is that it will happen faster than people are ready for it, and there will be tipping points.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Instead, Stu tried to create a negative impression merely by inferring a vague, negative attitude towards the source without presenting any corroborating details. That is a classical example of an ad hominem attack.

I said "Still getting your arguments from SkepticalScience I see"

Most of the participants here have been around long enough to have seen my repeated debunking of your SS quotes on previous GW threads. I really can't be bothered with doing it all again.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

I therefore think I am justified in pointing out to the thread that you are not a reliable source of scientific information.

I've always been clear about that one! Why would anyone want to rely on me -- or on the majority of posters here -- as a reliable source of scientific information?

Again, I don't think Stu or anyone else who has spent more than 10 mins. reading skepticalscience.com doesn't understand their bias, just like others reading climatedepot.com isn't aware of their bias on the other side. Bias is almost always present to some degree, but nobody should be fooled into believing these are neutral, objective sources of information about the science. So what's the point of cutting & pasting such sources onto the pages of the forum as if they are?

Btw, ad hominem would be a fallacious, irrelevant attack on you as the poster of a biased source of information, not on the source of the information itself. Whether you prefer getting your info from SS or not, please don't tell us you're naive enough to believe it -- or any of the myriad sources on the other side -- are objective! I keep being surprised to read how intolerant & often unaware people are of other viewpoints, and how quick they are to deal with disagreement by attempting to label their proponents in a derogatory manner. Surely an "objective" source of information is not merely one which affirms your own point of view!

My only "position" on the science is that I don't believe it is as "settled" as the mainstream media and left-leaning pundits claim it to be. In fact, I don't think the majority of climate scientists believe it is as settled as it is portrayed by the media, politicians, and posters on forums who have an obvious political agenda. As Spencer & Christy famously once said, they would be included in the infamous 97-99% consensus even though they are considered skeptics. I also don't believe it is likely a hoax or a scam, but again that is based on incomplete information. But it seems unlikely given the majority scientific consensus on at least significant components of the overall issue.

The truth might be somewhere in btwn (as usual), but this entire debate begs the question of whether there's anything we can or should do about it? Realistic action that is, not going backwards to holding hands & singing Kumbaya on the communal farm. If the human contribution to warming is not significant, or if it is but not harmful, then the debate should be about some of the other issues that have been raised, i.e. fossil fuels as a finite energy source, other unhealthy crap we're polluting the planet with, resource depletion, etc. Otherwise, and as we've seen, the CC/MMGW issue just becomes a platform for those on a pretty radical end of the political spectrum who believe that capitalism is inherently bad, and should be abolished for a more socialistic type of system. They're entitled to their views, of course, but that's far afield from the more typical proponent of the CC agenda who is primarily & justifiably concerned over current & future environmental impacts, and not so obsessed with the political issues.

[a64pilot]

My German neighbor and I were talking one day and statistics came up.
He said they have a saying in Germany, “statistics are like a lady of the evening, if your paying, you get what you want.”
Point being that yes, this for whatever reason has been so heavily politicized, that many are paying to get the results they want.
It’s why just ordinary slobs like me are left wondering.
However there has to be huge amounts of money to be had on both sides, for there to be so much paying going on.
Just me, but I think the truth is somewhere in between. But how do you know.
By the way just what is a climate change scientist anyway? Is that some new field?