Scientist misuses science in argument
I was both amused and annoyed by Kevin Trenberth’s Speakout column of Oct. 24, “Mostly wrong on warming,” in which he criticized Rocky columnist Mike Rosen for his comments about global warming.
He misuses science when he states “ ... we can prove — using climate models — that [global warming] is due to human influences ... ”
Models do not “prove” anything. I have used modeling most of my career and know they can be adjusted to show a wide variety of desired outcomes!
Trenberth prefers to use models instead of physical measurements that show a better correlation between Earth temperature and the solar cycle, and between temperatures and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.
He dismisses solar variation by pointing out a 0.1 percent solar intensity fluctuation vs. 1 percent needed for temperature changes. He ignores recent studies that show the sun’s magnetic field affects cosmic rays entering the solar system, which have been shown — in laboratory experiments, not computer models — to affect cloud cover, which thus magnifies the effect of the sun.
No, Mr. Trenberth, science prefers physical measurements over computer models to prove its hypotheses!
Richard Postma, Ph.D. (physics)
Littleton
Models do not “prove” anything. I have used modeling most of my career and know they can be adjusted to show a wide variety of desired outcomes!
I agree that Trenberth saying the models are proof was wrong, but then I'll also say that science doesn't "prove" anything - all findings are provisional.
Sure models can produce a wide range of outcomes, but hopefully the inputs are based as closely to what is know as possible and a particular "desired outcome" isn't the goal.
He ignores recent studies that show the sun’s magnetic field affects cosmic rays entering the solar system, which have been shown — in laboratory experiments, not computer models — to affect cloud cover, which thus magnifies the effect of the sun.
And there are a slew of problems with the idea of cosmic rays affecting climate to a very large degree. Just a couple of the problems are that the cloud condensation nuclei generated in the lab experiments are way too small and cosmic ray measurements don't show a trend that matches recent temperature changes.
See:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651
for several of the problems with this idea
Oh for crying in a bucket, are we going to re-fight the bloody “science wars” all over again?
Trenberth certainly overstepped the mark when he used “proof” in that manner, but the answer is to clarify, not to embark on faux-certitude of measurements qua totems.
”No, Mr. Trenberth, science prefers physical measurements over computer models to prove its hypotheses!”
Oh bollocks Doctor.
I refer you to Ernst Mach with reference to “instrumental theory” and their use to build models of understanding.
In your own discipline, would you claim that positrons exist, or are they models?
How about the Higgs boson, real or an instrument?
Does spin refer to an actual property, or to an instrumental model of understanding?
Physical measurements are as theory-laden as models are, and we use models where the complexity is too great for a simple hypothesis.
So let’s not get all wrapped up in the pretense that all we need to do is do a bit of measurement instead of using models. We need both, and both are interdependent.
Postma,
We would very much appreciate it if you would leave reality out of our scientific discusssions on this page. We have our prejudices settled and don't much like having them shaken.
This business of drawing distinctions between modeling and measuring is all well and good in the academic realm but, it's certainly not going to win you any Academy Awards.
It is quite hysterical how you pro-GW honks get your panties all in a twist when any scientist that has his own mind and own interpretation of the GW debate differs in opinion with those of you who are sold hook, line and sinker to this theory.
He is a scientist CL and BS - what are you two? Laypeople? Why if you two are such experts in this field don't post your credentials.
This is precisely why the "debate is NOT over" as mr. Gore so proudly proclaims.
There is a lot of others out there like mr. Postma who just don't get the same stage as all of those on the pro side do.
I'm pro pollution and anti-conservation
Posted by Mike Rosen on November 5, 2007 07:13 AMThe same computer models, built by the same "experts," gave us the Coming Ice Age 35 years ago. I'm still waiting.
Leftist George Soros bribed NASA's Hansen ( a leading GW modeler) some $720,000 to cook the data. Hansen is mentioned in several of Soros' financial documents. $720, 000 can buy a lot of data for computer models--GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.
Posted by Hank on November 5, 2007 07:35 AMNEWS ALERT: THAT MOTHER OF ALL CONSPIRATORS, AL GORE, HAS NOW ENLISTED CHINA AS A CO-CONSPIRATOR
"BEIJING, Nov 5 (Reuters) - China suffers a water shortage of nearly 40 billion cubic metres a year which Water Resources Minister Chen Lei blamed largely on global warming, state media reported on Monday."
Posted by Truth on November 5, 2007 07:37 AMTruth,
Right - It's not like the Chicoms would just make that stuff up.
Posted by James Jones on November 5, 2007 07:43 AM"The same computer models, built by the same 'experts', gave us the Coming Ice Age 35 years ago. I'm still waiting."
Stay tuned for another episode of "That '70s Show."
That's right, Hank: technology hasn't progressed in 35 years. Neither, it seems, have your arguments.
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on November 5, 2007 07:54 AMJack Bauer:
It is quite hysterical how you pro-GW honks get your panties all in a twist when any scientist that has his own mind and own interpretation of the GW debate differs in opinion with those of you who are sold hook, line and sinker to this theory. He is a scientist CL and BS - what are you two? Laypeople? Why if you two are such experts in this field don't post your credentials.
Well, you can look up the link I provided and research the substance behind Dr. Postma's opinion on cosmic rays & climate change, you don't have to take my word for it.
You see, I present my arguements and provide sources for anyone interested in researching it and don't rely on my "credentials". But since you asked, my credentials include a BS & MS in a physical science - you'll have to guess which one.
And while we're at it - do you have a point other that claims of twisted panties?
Posted by CL on November 5, 2007 07:59 AMCan anyone tell me the weather for the next 10 days? 5 days? Didn't think so.
Posted by T on November 5, 2007 08:30 AMDon't worry, Jesus will come back and fix everything.
Posted by Jesus is coming. on November 5, 2007 09:38 AMSo-called "global warming" is just a secret ploy by wacko tree-huggers to make America energy independent, clean our air and water, improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles, kick-start 21st century industries and make our cities safer and more liveable. Don't let them get away with it.
Posted by Chip Giller on November 5, 2007 09:55 AMLet's see.... since we are flapping gums about credentials.... What credentials does Algore have?
There is a debate amongst scientists and with a system so complex as the earth, there is simply no way any model can be correct. There is simply no way a model can take into account every variable. Does more forestation cause more problems as more trees absorb more heat...etc etc.etc
There is a debate whether man made causes to Global Warming are the primary cause, secondary cause or negligible. This does not make every dissenter an oil company shill just as every GW disciple isn't a raving lunatic follower of the algore principle.
We may never know if this is a natural phenomenon, but it is also happening on Mars, so, that is likely a good chunk of the problem. Does man have an influence? yep, is it a big problem? prolly not. Would the costs to our economy and society be worth the small changes possible? nope.
I do think Algore is in it purely for the money and the prestige. If he wasn't such a hypocrite on this, maybe he would have some credibility.... naw.
Posted by Dravur on November 5, 2007 11:04 AMHank repeated, yet again, the following lie:
"The same computer models, built by the same "experts," gave us the Coming Ice Age 35 years ago. I'm still waiting."
Hank, how many times are you gonna tell the same lie and think people give you an ounce of credibility.
Please provide citations for your claim, otherwise those of us with a brain will continue to go forward knowing that what you're talking about was a Newsweek article that they have since retracted that was not based on models, or written by any scientists.
But it fits your ideological narrative, so you keep shouting it like volume and repetition will make it true.
Keep clicking your heels Dorothy.
Posted by Charles B on November 5, 2007 11:17 AMI don't know whether to despise Keith or feel sorry for him; Keith is so limited in his vocabulary; it is a vocabulary I have been active in dissuading from being used so as never to compel the moderator to cancel this blog out of disgust.
Posted by JVB on November 5, 2007 12:25 PMExtremism is killing this country.
People who think that we shouldn't pollute at all need to remember that Americans need a robust economy to defend the country and to feed their families.
On the other hand, people who think that we can burn all the fossil fuesl we want forever are only fooling themselves.
It's time to quit listening to the extremists on both ends of the spectrum and for sane, moderate people to start working together to create real solutions.
Calling names and pointing fingers isn't fixing anything.
Posted by Tree Hugger on November 5, 2007 12:39 PMTree Hugger, you're dreaming again. The extremes are the ones that whine loud enough to be heard, and so the media listens.
Moderates will never be heard.
Posted by Bear on November 5, 2007 02:06 PMBear,
Moderates never know what they think unitl the after the question has been decided. So while moderates are free to speak, they are never heard.
Posted by James Jones on November 5, 2007 06:28 PMJames,
As one who considers myself a "moderate", I can assure you that I know what I think. Just because my opinion doesn't always fall neatly into one of two distinctly broad and heavy-handed political philosophies doesn't mean I have no convictions.
And frankly, most moderates steer clear of the venomous and non-productive debating in politics these days.... that is why they are never heard.
Posted by Dan on November 5, 2007 07:52 PMDan,
A moderate what?
Moderate is an adjective, or a verb as in 'To moderate a debate', but it is not a noun.
Posted by Mike on November 5, 2007 08:49 PMMike
JJ's Lexicon
Mod-er-at: (noun) - One who: 1. makes it up as one goes along. 2. goes with the flow. 3. acts superior by not yelling like a venemous ideologue.
Posted by James Jones on November 5, 2007 09:04 PMMike,
It's a noun. To be precise, I consider myself a social libertarian and fiscal conservative. I am in direct opposition to most social conservative policies, so I can't really call myself a conservative. I also believe in strong local governments and a weak federal government, so I can't call myself a liberal. I don't believe in gun control. I am pro-choice. I believe in "pay as you go". I am against gay marriage amendments. I am for the death penalty.
So I don't fall neatly into the liberal or conservative mantras. So what should I call myself? "Moderate" is most convenient. If you can't accept that all of the world's issues don't fall under a distinct "philosophy", then I can't help you. But I know what my convictions are, and I could care less about philosophies.
And by the way-- from Webster's:
Moderate (noun) - a person who holds moderate views, esp. in politics.
Not a noun, huh?
Posted by Dan on November 5, 2007 09:05 PMJames,
I could retort with:
Liberal or conservative (nouns) - 1. An individual whose thoughts and beliefs have to be confirmed or rubber-stamped by their respectful ideologies. 2. Sheep. 3. Incapable of critical thought or compromise.
But that would be rude of me.
Posted by Dan on November 5, 2007 09:13 PMGreat. You hold moderate views. Wow, how enlightening.
Social libertarian and fiscal conservative?
I would say you are a moderate conservative.
Just saying 'moderate' is so wishy washy.
Posted by Mike on November 5, 2007 09:17 PMMike,
It's a label. If you like yours so much-- great. Embroider it onto the ass of your jeans. Put a big neon sign on your house. Change your handle to "Mike the Conservative". Let the whole damn world know.
So you can neatly wrap all your beliefs into one handy little label. That's nice. I'm sure it makes day-to-day living that much easier for you.
Posted by Dan on November 5, 2007 09:26 PM4. unoriginal, prone to mimicry, 5. pretends not to be rude.
Posted by James Jones on November 5, 2007 10:00 PMDan,
Venomous sheep needs a little work. Baa cannot be used pejoratively.
Posted by James Jones on November 5, 2007 10:09 PMActually, Dan it has no effect on my day-to-day living, but it is a handy little label.
What's the point of announcing you are a moderate? It doesn't mean anything other than you hold 'moderate' views; whatever that means.
I think the phrase you were looking for earlier was, 'I couldn't care less'; not 'I could care less'.
Posted by Mike on November 5, 2007 10:13 PMJames,
"4. unoriginal, prone to mimicry, 5. pretends not to be rude."
LOL. Touché.
"Venomous sheep needs a little work. Baa cannot be used pejoratively."
Anything is possible on these forums.
Posted by Dan on November 5, 2007 10:16 PMMike,
What is the point of announcing you are conservative, or liberal? Or for that matter calling someone that out of insult? It does little to advance the topic at hand.
" It doesn't mean anything other than you hold 'moderate' views; whatever that means."
I know-- it's such a big world out there. Best to stay in your comfy zone.
"I think the phrase you were looking for earlier was, 'I couldn't care less'; not 'I could care less'."
And I could care less about your grammar critique. It's a forum post, not a collegiate discertation. Next time I'll hire a proofreader for your delicate sensibilities.
Posted by Dan on November 5, 2007 10:22 PMI don't have "delicate sensibilities". I just can't stand it when someone says one thing and means exactly the opposite. People say that phrase incorrectly more often than they say it correctly.
The point is identification. Calling yourself a liberal, moderate liberal, conservative, moderate conservative, libertarian, or whatever gives others an idea into your philosophy without needing to spend hours talking to you; just saying "moderate" is pointless. It doesn't say anything about you.
Posted by Mike on November 5, 2007 10:31 PMMike,
It says I'm not a wingnut lunatic, and I'm debating for the benefit of learning and not just for the fun of smackdown. And why do I need to know your philosophy? All I need to know is your position on said topic.
For that matter, let's delve a little deeper. What does conservative mean? Goldwater conservative? Religious whack job? Bush patsy? Conservatives come in a wide variety of flavors these days. Just like liberals.
I'm not here to educate you on who I am. I only mentioned it before to make a point, in that I take exception to the myth that moderates have no beliefs or convictions.
Life cannot be condensed into two wholly misunderstood philosophies. I don't need a label to debate a point. If that sort of security blanket helps you--great. Have at it.
By the way, your over-zealous use of the semi-colon is just as annoying. Just an FYI.
Posted by Dan on November 5, 2007 10:42 PMJack Bauer grizzled ” He is a scientist CL and BS - what are you two? Laypeople? Why if you two are such experts in this field don't post your credentials”
My credentials for attacking Dr. account of how science works are that I have a Ba in Philosophy & Logic with a major in Philosophy of Science, plus some postgrad work in PoS. In other words, I studied science itself. So that gives me ample right to argue with him over what amounts to science and what the relevance of models are.
No special right, mind you.
Secondly I have a Bsc with a major in avionics and sense & control systems, so I know about how things are sensed, and how computational models work.
Thirdly, my Ma is in Information Science and my research area includes how humans sense, how they acquire information, process information, and generate and use knowledge. Neuropsychology and Neuroinformatics are examples of the study domain.
I hope that meets with your approval, but like somebody else intimated, this is not a credential pissing-match, it’s about what the best science of the day indicates, and what tools the best science has at its disposal.
The big mystery is why people like Rosen get any traction whatsoever, given that the scientific press is overwhelmingly in support of the GW position.
” There is a lot of others out there like mr. Postma who just don't get the same stage as all of those on the pro side do.”
No doubt there are, but here’s the thing Jackie-boy, I read a ton of scientific literature, just piles of it, and these scientists you talk of just aren’t publishing any research showing how GW is wrong. I just see nothing saying how humans aren’t causing the heating event, or how it’s not really a heating event. Nada.
Everything in the journals is about some new finding that further confirms that it’s human activities causing a warming event, or how one more thing confirms that it is warming.
Now you could claim that they are all just lying or corrupt, but y’know, that sounds just too paranoid, and, well, plain nutty.
So being as how I am not a climate specialist, I take my cue from the journals and the science bodies, who all support the position that we are experiencing a warming event, and it is due to human activity.
If those bodies change their view, then so dadgummit, shall I, but until or unless they do, it would be perverse to continue to withhold conditional and tentative support.
Skank,
You know what the real problem is? The ozone hole has enlarged, untraviolet rays are streaming in at record levels and a lot of our great old black-and-white movies are becoming colorized (Ugh!). That's called Global Colorization. (GC).
You may tell me that there are a few dissenting physicists, but here’s the thing Skanko old Son, I read a ton of scientific literature, just piles of it, and these scientists you talk of just aren’t publishing any research showing how GC is wrong.
Posted by James Jones on November 6, 2007 06:25 AMJames...it irks you that there aren't really no credible, peer-reviewed, field-appropriate scientists who are challenging the consensus on GW doesn't it.
The real question is why are you once again against the side of science in favor of the lollipop land of "gut instincts" and "beliefs"?
Posted by jay on November 6, 2007 10:20 AMJames Jones:
You may tell me that there are a few dissenting physicists, but here’s the thing Skanko old Son, I read a ton of scientific literature, just piles of it, and these scientists you talk of just aren’t publishing any research showing how GC is wrong.
Now that is a really telling statement.
You're problem with the research is that the research doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of what the outcome should be. What's the point of doing research anyway if you are just going to reject the findings of the research if you don't like it?
That's how partisan politics works, not science.
That does it!!! Not only does Al Gore live in a big house, but Dr. James Jones claims to have examined all of the literature on the subject and decided he is right and everybody else is wrong. I just wish Jones would tell those melting icebergs about his findings.
Posted by Truth on November 6, 2007 01:02 PMCL,
That was actually a bit of satire. I got it from Skank's response to Jack Bauer.
No doubt there are, but here’s the thing Jackie-boy, I read a ton of scientific literature, just piles of it, and these scientists you talk of just aren’t publishing any research showing how GW is wrong.
Posted by Bangalore Skank on November 6, 2007 04:36 AM
Which I cleverly re-wrote as:
You may tell me that there are a few dissenting physicists, but here’s the thing Skanko old Son, I read a ton of scientific literature, just piles of it, and these scientists you talk of just aren’t publishing any research showing how GC is wrong.
Posted by James Jones on November 6, 2007 06:25 AM
Get it - pretty funny stuff don't you think. But to be honest your comments was much more then I could have hoped for.
Just to make the point you made
"You're problem with the research is that the research doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of what the outcome should be."
You and I are in agreement on Skank’s shoddy work. As a scientist he makes a good politician. I've been telling him exactly that for months. Maybe he'll believe it now that it comes from a man of your obvious perception.
Thank You.
CL
Another question, What do you think about GC?
Posted by James Jones on November 6, 2007 03:35 PMJJ:
The Global Cooling canard is below even your very low standards....I thought.
Posted by Charles B on November 6, 2007 03:51 PMCL and BS have me sold - I'm now a believer.
Not really but thank you both for the diatribes about how you are smarter than the me and the Dr. who wrote the op ed we are all arguing about.
I read piles of data about global warming as well, maybe not near as much as BS but I like to get the whole story. You know how the saying goes, there are three sides to a story, her side, his side and the truth. I shoot for the latter.
There are numerous articles and research papers from aclaimed scientists that have been and are being published that directly contradict the AGW theory (or human caused global warming for us not so well educated).- so you must not be very well read BS don't look very hard or you just stick to the side you've been sold on.
So go ahead and keep on reading your pile BS and CL keep posting your agenda driven websites, I guess I've lost this argument and will move on to how we cannot accurately forecast the weather for the next 5 days - let alone 100 years.
You two are just too smart for a fickle minded individual as myself. Good day.
Charles B,
Absolutely! Global Cooling is abusrd and has been for nearly two decades now.
I was referring to the Global Colorization occuring because of the increase in the ozone hole.
Remember when we used to be scared by the ozone hole? It came right after when we were scared by herpes.
Jack said ” … but thank you both for the diatribes about how you are smarter than the me and the Dr. who wrote the op ed we are all arguing about.”
You asked for credentials even though they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. You were hoping to lord it up that there were no credentials to offer and you could then pull an argument from authority for Postma and Rosen. Having demanded credentials, you can’t now pull the “poor little me” defense, so suck it up.
” I guess I've lost this argument and will move on to how we cannot accurately forecast the weather for the next 5 days - let alone 100 years.
You two are just too smart for a fickle minded individual as myself.”
You haven’t “lost” anything, this isn’t a pissing match, it’s a process of explanation.
The message is that all the journals and science bodies are saying we are in a warming event that is significantly driven by human activity, if Rosen or any other individual bypasses the process of publishing research results or findings in the journals, then you should be skeptical of their claims and ask why they are bypassing the normal process of science. Postma and Rosen can follow the same route as every other piece of science.
You aren’t “fickle minded”, you just didn’t ask the right question.
Jimmy said ” You may tell me that there are a few dissenting physicists, but here’s the thing Skanko old Son, I read a ton of scientific literature, just piles of it, and these scientists you talk of just aren’t publishing any research showing how GC is wrong.”
Nice parody James, but you would also have to add a pars construens section like I did in which you assert that all the piles of research that was in the journals said how GC was right.
So if the journals and science bodies have no papers saying that P, but have loads of papers saying not-P, then which is the position that would be advisable to take?
P?
… or not-P?
That is the question.
Rosen takes the opposite view to all the science bodies and reported research findings, so what does he know that all these scientists don’t?
Does he run his own independent research facility maybe, or does he just have an ideological commitment to service that forces him to deny anything that disagrees with what he already believes?
So I misread GW for GC in your post, big whoop.
Since research shows temps increasing it in fact shows that GC isn't happening, so your statement was false anyway.
Posted by CL on November 6, 2007 07:48 PMSkank,
"add a pars construens section " My how you do go on. That's probably attributable to all the years you tell us (I know Jack made you do it)spent in academia trying to get a diploma.
"I just see nothing saying how humans aren’t causing the heating event, or how it’s not really a heating event. Nada"
Of course you don't. That's because the earth is in a warming cycle. There are only three options: the earth's temperature is warming, cooling or static. The third is probably impossible so we are left with only two. The earth must be at all times either warming or cooling. Big deal.
Does human activity impact weather? Yes. To what extent? You and Academy Award winners tell us that the science is settled which notion is the antithesis of science. Postma makes that much clear.
pars construens - I don't think so. CL said it best (before he realized what he'd done and copped a plea),
"You're problem with the research is that the research doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of what the outcome should be."
Posted by James Jones on November 6, 2007 08:39 PMJack Bauer - I made no claim that I'm smarter than you or Dr. Postma, I even agreed with him to a point. You asked about credentials, so you shouldn't get upset that you got an answer. It's really immaterial anyway because I don't argue that my credentials make my posts any more substantial than anyone else's here.
New Scientist is agenda driven?? Well, they do report on science, so I guess you could call that an agenda. You don't have to rely on that link, I encourage you and anyone else to look up the research. Better still, read the exchanges that take place (which still are over the cosmic ray theory) and you'll get a pretty good idea of where the theory stands.
Posted by CL on November 6, 2007 08:43 PMCL
You disappoint. You did not misread GW for GC. You mistook Skank's point for mine.
The truth is that for you it's not so much what's said as it is who says it.
That is the limpest ratinalization I have seen on this page. I don't expect much in the way of integrity or imagination from you mind-numbed leftists but surely, by whatever it is you hold sacred, you must be able to do better than that.
Posted by James Jones on November 6, 2007 08:45 PMYou disappoint. You did not misread GW for GC. You mistook Skank's point for mine.
And to make this claim requires that I did not understand the posts, so all you are doing is taking what you want to believe over what I said.
I don't expect much in the way of integrity or imagination from you mind-numbed leftists but surely, by whatever it is you hold sacred, you must be able to do better than that.
So I'm a leftist? Speaking of imagination, I'd like to see you substantiate that - it'll take quite a bit.
James re-quoted CL thus "You're problem with the research is that the research doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of what the outcome should be."
James, your poor formatting and bad citation techniques make it very difficult to parse what you are trying to say.
Are you saying that I am guilty of what CL is quoted as saying about you, or are you saying that you do what CL said but see no issue with so doing?
If the former, I think you will find that I have repeatedly said that since I am not a climate specialist, I derive my position from the leading journals and science bodies.
For example, that of the National Academies of Science, which is clearly marking out a position that we are experiencing a warming event which is significantly driven by human activity.
”… the earth is in a warming cycle.”
Well hooray, you are halfway there Jimmy.
Now why do you say so? - did you do the primary research yourself, get it from a political party, from Rosen Inc.?
Or, did that come from the authority of the science bodies?
I mean, let’s face it, there is no way that you could have figured this out on your own since it requires a fair bit of scientific expertise and substantial research and experimentation, none of which (let’s face it) are your forte’
So how is it that you are so sure that the planet is warming?
Posted by Bangalore Skank on November 7, 2007 02:38 AMCL
You complain
"..all you are doing is taking what you want to believe over what I said."
Let's look at the record. You posted:
"You're problem with the research is that the research doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of what the outcome should be."
When I pointed out that the post was a paradoy of Skank you responded:
"So I misread GW for GC in your post, big whoop."
It has nothing to do with what I believe. Your response is irrational.
You object to my characerization of you as a leftist?
I admit that leftist is only an implication of your prejudices. So if you tell me that you are not a leftist, I will take your word for it and stand corrected.
I note you don't dispute mind-numbed. That's to your credit because the evidence here, even is these few posts, is dipositive.
Skank,
"Are you saying that I am guilty of what CL is quoted as saying about you,..."
Yes - Mine was the parody
"...or are you saying that you do what CL said but see no issue with so doing?"
No - Mine was the parody
Cast you mind back to the near-past when you asked John II for a study showing that a reduction in tax rates can lead to an increase in tax revenue. That inpsired a letter from me the RMN put up offering, not a study, but the reality of the past five years. Bush cut tax rates and tax revenue increased at record levels.
You may recall that your response to that data was a treatise on cause and effect. You pointed out that the increase in revenue was not necessarily attributable to the rate decrease.
You postulated that the increase may have come about due to special considerations I did not account for and that might have been in place at the same time. You were wise enough not to offer what any of those occurences might have been. Truth offered "consumer confidence" confirming the old adage about fools rushing.
Now comes the question of Global Warming.
There is no dispute that the earth has been alternately warming and cooling for billions of year. There is little dispute that the earth is currently warming.
It is also known that the global population is becoming more industrialized and consequently releasing greater quantities of gas by-products than have been released in the past.
This is observable data that we know from measurements. The question what, if any nexus, exists? Absent industrialization would the earth otherwise be in a period of cooling, or slower warming?
That is determined not by measurement but by modeling. Postma posits "Models do not “prove” anything. " and points to other phenomenon he claims have not been taken into account.
You discount Postma with a standard that is very different form what you required in the rate/revenue realtionship.
You fall back on vague formulstions of "significantly driven by human activity." Significantly as in a significatn fraction (one-tenth) of more than half?
It is hard not to notice that your standards of analyis vary in a direct relationship to your political views.
Which brings us back to CL
"You're problem with the research is that the research doesn't agree with your preconcieved notion of what the outcome should be."
He was aiming at me but hit you.
Posted by James Jones on November 7, 2007 10:38 AM"Bush cut tax rates and tax revenue increased at record levels."
Unfortunatley there's no evidence that this is a causal relationship....but nice try.
Posted by jay on November 7, 2007 10:40 AMJames:
I admit that leftist is only an implication of your prejudices.
Which assumes you know what my prejudices are, which you can only presume. So now your telling me your original statement was a (faulty) presumption based on a presumption. Since your first presumption was faulty, what's to say the second isn't as well.
That's a rather pathetic basis to form an arguement.
I note you don't dispute mind-numbed. That's to your credit because the evidence here, even is these few posts, is dipositive.
I admit the one post qualifies as being mind-numbed, but not the others. For example my first post on this thread - care to demonstrate (and I don't mean just imply) that this is false?
And there are a slew of problems with the idea of cosmic rays affecting climate to a very large degree.
And if you are like Jack and think the New Scientist link I provided:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11651
is an agenda-driven website, you might want to check out what one of the most respected science journals, Nature, has to say about it:
"No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics"
Sun not to blame for global warming.
Nature 448, 8-9 (5 July 2007)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html
A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays.
So James, if I'm as "mind-numbed" as you claim, then it should be a piece of cake for you to demonstrate what I said is false.
Posted by CL on November 7, 2007 11:19 AMjay,
Right on point as always.
Posted by James Jones on November 7, 2007 11:54 AMCL
Do I get out of you assignment if I just acknowledge that you have lucid intervals?
I'm a bit pressed for time just now - pressures of business.
Posted by James Jones on November 7, 2007 12:01 PMJames, you still haven’t answered my question.
How is it that you are so sure that the planet is warming?
You aren’t doing this research yourself, you cannot know it just by looking about you, so how did you come by this knowledge?
”… That inpsired a letter from me the RMN put up offering, not a study, but the reality of the past five years. Bush cut tax rates and tax revenue increased at record levels.”
Again, you didn’t offer any research, you just asserted it to be true, and again, you are obviously not a researcher, and this area of economics has already dumbfounded experts in the field. So how is it that you know that this specific situation will respond to rate cuts as you claim?
Again you claim something, but your heuristics are cloaked.
” There is no dispute that the earth has been alternately warming and cooling for billions of year.”
Actually a great many people dispute it.
There are also millions who dispute that the planet has been in existence for billions of years, let alone going through climate cycles.
Those people are just very seldom scientists and those arguments are seldom backed by any sort of research, and even less often (read never) wind up being published in the science journals or forming part of the positions of science bodies.
So yet again, why is it that you believe that the planet is billions of years old and has been undergoing climatic cycles?
You didn’t research it yourself, you can’t know it from just looking about you, and God didn’t tell you. So how did you come by this knowledge?
I will answer that for you since you are being so coy, and you are free to correct me.
You get it via sources that you trust, that are either the science bodies and journals themselves, or (more likely) you get it filtered through the mouths of people with whom you find an affinity.
You accuse me of cherry-picking the research that agrees with what I prefer, which is what CL accused you of. You are both right, since this is a hard-wired human trait and not one of us escapes it.
Which is why science builds in self-correcting methods and heuristics to reduce that bias wherever possible.
We are all going to have massive bias to agree with things that are claimed by people we respect or like, or are “like us”, and we are massively biased to remember and favour claims that agree with our preferences and worldviews.
It is an inbuilt human fault, and I have it in no less measure than any other person, including you.
So to minimize this massive source of bias, science has evolved techniques to mitigate and limit bias and error, and one of those is the process of peer-reviewed journals and the science bodies.
By no means perfect, but far far better than what we would be able to do without it.
So again, how did you come by the knowledge you claim, and whose authority are you using?
I use the science bodies and the journals and this lessens my bias and error. I take their considered position on global warming, not because I prefer it, but because I have no opinion that could possibly be better than theirs.
So again, where are you getting your position from, and why do you think your source is more likely to be true than that of the journals and science bodies?
The NAS for example, clearly places human activities front and centre, yet you deny this.
So what source are you claiming that is more trustworthy than NAS?
Skank,
"You accuse me of cherry-picking the research that agrees with what I prefer"
No, I accuse you of being inconsistent.
The age of the earth is 3-4 billion years and the climate has never been static.
I get my information in the same manner as everyone else. The difference between us is that I think about it.
Posted by James Jones on November 7, 2007 09:58 PMJames said sternly ”I accuse you of being inconsistent.”
Sure, happens to me often, like it does with everybody else on the planet.
I don’t think that you picked a good example of my inconsistency though.
”The age of the earth is 3-4 billion years and the climate has never been static.
I get my information in the same manner as everyone else.”
So what “same manner” would that be James, you still haven’t said.
The way you dance about without actually naming your sources is quite amazing, are you a lawyer by trade?
So spit it out already James, how do you know the planet is warming?
You don’t do any research of your own, you disagree with the scientific journals and the science bodies, so who are you getting your information from?
”The difference between us is that I think about it.”
Hmm.
That doesn’t seem to be working too well for you Jimmy since you keep winding up on the same side as Rosen and the opposite side to the science bodies, so I would suggest that you quit just thinking about it, and start reading the information given out by the science journals and the science bodies.
Try NAS; they publish material on the subject suitable for politicians and lawyers.
Should suit you just fine.
Here is some reading material for you James, read it and then do that thinking stuff again.
National Academy presentation to Congress
www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/Climate_Change_Science_and_Economics.asp
The full NAS report
http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676#toc
Here is the Joint Sciences Academies Statement
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
James Jones:
I'm a bit pressed for time just now - pressures of business.
I'm patient.
Meanwhile since this thread has turned to cherry picking research and such, here's a thought to ponder: Why didn't Dr. Postma mention the research discrediting the Cosmic Ray theory he touted? Did he not read the research, did he ignore it? Why didn't you pick up on this point Mr. Jones??
It might be understandable if they were published in some obscure journal for specialists, but just the two sources I cited - the New Scientist and Nature are widely read and anything but obscure.
And if you are wondering about me, rest assured, I read Friis-Christensen's work some time ago (I'll leave it to you to figure out who that is).
Posted by CL on November 8, 2007 08:57 AM
On this page I will tell you what I think and why I think it. I will respond to what you post on this page. That's all I have done or will do.
If either of you think I have made some climate-related claim that is specious then adduce it. There isn't any. You ask me to explain Potsma's work when I have posted nothing to support it. You think I have, it's not true.
If you think you have some compelling information showing that we are doomed if we don't adopt the Kyoto protocols then adduce it here. I will tell you what I think if you make an interesting point.
I do not have the time or motivation to get into the dueling web pages arguing about whose authority is corrrect that takes up so much space here.
When you screw up the way CL did, I will point it out. I will also have as much fun with it as there is to be had. I hope you will do the same.
I am quite often handed reading assignments on this page by people telling me I should read more and think less.
Pass.
On this page I will tell you what I think and why I think it. I will respond to what you post on this page. That's all I have done or will do.
If either of you think I have made some climate-related claim that is specious then adduce it. There isn't any. You ask me to explain Potsma's work when I have posted nothing to support it. You think I have, it's not true.
If you think you have some compelling information showing that we are doomed if we don't adopt the Kyoto protocols then adduce it here. I will tell you what I think if you make an interesting point.
I do not have the time or motivation to get into the dueling web pages arguing about whose authority is corrrect that takes up so much space here.
When you screw up the way CL did, I will point it out. I will also have as much fun with it as there is to be had. I hope you will do the same.
I am quite often handed reading assignments and occasionally told I should read more and think less.
Pass.
James Jones:
On this page I will tell you what I think and why I think it. I will respond to what you post on this page. That's all I have done or will do.
And I'll respond to those, pointing out where you make assertions that have no basis in fact and how you build on those assertions with more baseless assertions to make insults and arguements with no foundation.
If either of you think I have made some climate-related claim that is specious then adduce it.
Why not deal with what we have written rather than worry about what we might think?
You ask me to explain Potsma's work when I have posted nothing to support it. You think I have, it's not true.
And that's patently false. Potsma's work has never been even been brought up - or did you misunderstand what has been posted??
You made an attempt to discredit all of my posts and made outright insults to me and I responded directly to those and challenged you on them.
And clearly when challenged you fell flat on your face.
If you think you have some compelling information showing that we are doomed if we don't adopt the Kyoto protocols then adduce it here. I will tell you what I think if you make an interesting point.
And when did I say anything about Kyoto and us being doomed if we don't accept it?
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
I do not have the time or motivation to get into the dueling web pages arguing about whose authority is correct that takes up so much space here.
In case you missed it, both Bangalore and I have specifically stated that this is not a pissing contest about authority. Jack Bauer tried to make an arguement from authority.
I asked why Potsma doesn't mention (widely published) research that discredits the theory of Cosmic Ray influence on the climate because it shows that his statement:
He [Trenberth] ignores recent studies that show the sun’s magnetic field affects cosmic rays entering the solar system, which have been shown in laboratory experiments, not computer models to affect cloud cover, which thus magnifies the effect of the sun.
is not just highly ironic, but quite hypocritical.
I asked why you didn't pick up on this to give you a chance to explain what appears to be a double standard on your part. Now that we see you are evading the question, what are we to make of your standards Mr Jones?
When you screw up the way CL did, I will point it out. I will also have as much fun with it as there is to be had. I hope you will do the same.
I admitted I screwed up with that one post, and I don't have a problem with you having fun with it and would even say I deserve it. However, when you tried to claim that I'm some sort of mind-numbed leftist, I called you on it and challenged you to back up that claim - which as we see now you are either unwilling or unable to do so.
Remember when you wrote this?
I don't expect much in the way of integrity or imagination from you mind-numbed leftists but surely, by whatever it is you hold sacred, you must be able to do better than that.
Yet here we are with you failing to support your own various claims and insults, begging them off and making blatently false and distorted statements. What does this say about your "integrity or imagination"?
Posted by CL on November 8, 2007 01:34 PMCL,
Just remind me now, which of my climate-related claims have you challenged?
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 01:45 PMAnd where did I say they were "climate-related"??
Posted by CL on November 8, 2007 02:53 PMWhy didn't Dr. Postma mention the research discrediting the Cosmic Ray theory he touted?
Posted by: CL | November 8, 2007 08:57 AM
Potsma's work has never been even been brought up - or did you misunderstand what has been posted??
I asked why Potsma doesn't mention (widely published) research that discredits the theory of Cosmic Ray influence on the climate because it shows that his statement
Posted by CL on November 8, 2007 01:34 PM
You will note that you managed to get those last two gems in the same post.
I have accused you being mind-numbed because you shot at me and potted Skank managing to hit yourself squarely in the foot (two-for-the-price-of-one) - nothing else. But then you have admitted that much.
Now if you are not referring to my climate-related claims then what exactly is it that I have failed to support making "blatently false and distorted statements" about?
You are fast graduating from mind-numbed with lucid intervals to World Class nit-wit.
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 04:53 PMI have accused you being mind-numbed because you shot at me and potted Skank managing to hit yourself squarely in the foot (two-for-the-price-of-one) - nothing else.Bull. You wrote:
I don't expect much in the way of integrity or imagination from you mind-numbed leftists
If it was just the one post then you what, didn't expect much before I made the post? After I made the post? And with leftists being plural, you obviously are including others - did you mean they too are only sometimes mind-numbed or am the only one to get that exclusion from that? Then only afterward did you sort of exclude me from the leftists - are you now trying to say you only meant I was a leftist because of that one post?
Now if you are not referring to my climate-related claims ...
When you quoted me you chopped off:
I asked why you didn't pick up on this to give you a chance to explain what appears to be a double standard on your part
Now what double standard do you think I was referring to? Here's a clue - remember when I wrote:
Meanwhile since this thread has turned to cherry picking research and such, here's a thought to ponder: Why didn't Dr. Postma mention the research discrediting the Cosmic Ray theory he touted? Did he not read the research, did he ignore it? Why didn't you pick up on this point Mr. Jones??
Now what was it you were accusing Bangalore of doing?? And how was that a "climate-related claim"??
... then what exactly is it that I have failed to support making "blatently false and distorted statements" about?Well, for example, what do you think you were doing when you wrote this?
You ask me to explain Potsma's work when I have posted nothing to support it. You think I have, it's not true.
Which I called "patently false" - you had to have seen that - it was the sentence before the one you quoted me on above about Potsma's work.
And distortions - you are still doing it.
CL
I will not torment you further.
Posted by James Jones on November 8, 2007 09:00 PM