Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Applying the Dharma for the preservation of planet Earth and its inhabitants
User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: US occupied Northern Mexico

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by lyndon taylor » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:33 pm

Yes, you've taken us off into the twilight zone of climate science!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk.

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
KathyLauren
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: East coast of Canada

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by KathyLauren » Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:19 pm
KathyLauren wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:05 pm
Which means that, if human activity were to cease producing CO2 tomorrow, the level in the atmosphere would stop increasing.
It is therefore not demonstrated that human activity is the cause, but strongly suggested.
I disagree.

Human activity can account for all the increase in CO2. Therefore, in the absence of that human activity, there would be no increase. That is simple arithmetic, and is sufficient to demonstrate causation to a reasonable certainty.

To believe that any other solution could be plausible, you would have to postulate a mechanism of removing CO2 at exactly the rate that humans are generating it, AND an alternate mechanism that is generating the observed increase. The certainty of the antropogenic theory is exactly complementary to the implausibility of that bizarre scenario.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

Pseudobabble
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:00 am

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Pseudobabble » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:09 pm

KathyLauren wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:55 pm
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:19 pm
KathyLauren wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:05 pm
Which means that, if human activity were to cease producing CO2 tomorrow, the level in the atmosphere would stop increasing.
It is therefore not demonstrated that human activity is the cause, but strongly suggested.
I disagree.

Human activity can account for all the increase in CO2. Therefore, in the absence of that human activity, there would be no increase. That is simple arithmetic, and is sufficient to demonstrate causation to a reasonable certainty.

To believe that any other solution could be plausible, you would have to postulate a mechanism of removing CO2 at exactly the rate that humans are generating it, AND an alternate mechanism that is generating the observed increase. The certainty of the antropogenic theory is exactly complementary to the implausibility of that bizarre scenario.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy
{A} Human activity can account for all the increase in CO2. {B} Therefore, in the absence of that human activity, there would be no increase.
[My emphasis added]

{A} does not necessitate {B}. Can does not imply does, nor must. Just because a bird can fly, does not mean that it does, nor that it must.
To believe that any other solution could be plausible, you would have to postulate a mechanism of removing CO2 at exactly the rate that humans are generating it, AND an alternate mechanism that is generating the observed increase. The certainty of the anthropogenic theory is exactly complementary to the implausibility of that bizarre scenario.
[My emphasis added]

I agree with this, apart from the word 'certainty'. If the word there was 'probability', then I would agree fully.

chownah
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 2:08 am

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by chownah » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:22 pm

Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:19 pm
chownah wrote: I don't know if what you post in the way you post it is helping things or not overall. I'm not trying to censure or edit your posting...I'm just wanting to express what I think about it.
I think you are right chownah, I'll absent myself now, because I think I have taken this too far off track already.
From the way you have truncated my post I think you may not have seen that my intent was to say that I did not know if what you post expounding on what can be proved is helpful or not and my comment was not meant to your posting in general....Sorry that I did not make that clearer.
chownah

Pseudobabble
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:00 am

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Pseudobabble » Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:43 pm

chownah wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:22 pm
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:19 pm
chownah wrote: I don't know if what you post in the way you post it is helping things or not overall. I'm not trying to censure or edit your posting...I'm just wanting to express what I think about it.
I think you are right chownah, I'll absent myself now, because I think I have taken this too far off track already.
From the way you have truncated my post I think you may not have seen that my intent was to say that I did not know if what you post expounding on what can be proved is helpful or not and my comment was not meant to your posting in general....Sorry that I did not make that clearer.
chownah
Don't worry - I did understand. I meant that I'll stop taking this into philosophical and pedantic territory, since I think the purpose of the thread is meant to be politics and activism regarding climate change, not whether its provable.

User avatar
KathyLauren
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2018 3:12 pm
Location: East coast of Canada

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by KathyLauren » Thu Jul 05, 2018 4:38 pm

Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 3:09 pm
{A} Human activity can account for all the increase in CO2. {B} Therefore, in the absence of that human activity, there would be no increase.
[My emphasis added]

{A} does not necessitate {B}. Can does not imply does, nor must. Just because a bird can fly, does not mean that it does, nor that it must.
Suppose you have a 55-gallon drum that contains 50 gallons of water. You add ten gallons of water to it. Obviously it will overflow. Are you responsible for the overflow?

Obviously you could argue that, if the barrel had held less water, there would have been no problem. But it wasn't empty. Your activity alone can account for the excess. If the overflow caused damage, you would be held accountable, because no one can plausibly argue that there was any cause other than your adding too much.

Om mani padme hum
Kathy

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1221
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:37 am

More extreme weather, as predicted by Hansen ("Loading the Climate Dice") years ago.
Japan is already dealing with unprecedented floods and now, quite independently, there's a Cat 5 typhoon heading for Taiwan -
TAIPEI (Taiwan News) -- Super Typhoon Maria is poised to strike northern Taiwan on Tuesday (July 10) and it is anticipated that the storm will take a full day to pass over the country, according to the Central Weather Bureau (CWB).

As the category 5 typhoon nears Taiwan, a sea warning is likely to be issued this afternoon and as the storm is estimated to have a 90 percent chance of striking northern and northeastern Taiwan, a land warning is likely in the early morning tomorrow, according to the CWB. The typhoon is expected to first impact at some point in the afternoon on Tuesday and continue to affect northern Taiwan until Wednesday afternoon. ... Maria is registering maximum sustained winds of 198 kilometers per hour with wind gusts of up to 244 kilometers per hour. ...
China will get it a day or two later.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3477436

:namaste:
Kim

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Climate change - politics and activism

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:23 pm

KathyLauren wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:55 pm
Pseudobabble wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 2:19 pm
KathyLauren wrote:
Thu Jul 05, 2018 1:05 pm
It is therefore not demonstrated that human activity is the cause, but strongly suggested.
I disagree.
If we are talking about the cause of the increase in CO2 then it's correct to say that human activity is strongly suggested.
I think a informed person should concede the point -- "strongly suggested" rather than "demonstrated". With an emphasis on "strongly" if you like.

On the other hand, off-hand, I can't think of a "luke-warmist" (a.k.a "climate skeptic") that would disagree with that. CO2 rise is most likely caused by human activity. Or, as KathyLauren later wrote, that the evidence " is sufficient to demonstrate causation to a reasonable certainty."


It's important to keep in mind just how broad a category "human activity" is however. It's not all emissions out of smoke stacks and exhausts. Nor is CO2 the only greenhouse gas. And greenhouse gases are not the only human influence on climate.
“Land use, land-use change and forestry,” which is often abbreviated to just “land use,” is responsible for about a quarter of the climate-changing pollution that’s escaping into the atmosphere every year.
-- https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... egotiator/
The production of cement alone is said to contribute about %5 of the world's total CO2 emissions each year.

Some recent results tentatively suggested that "land use" might be responsible for a higher percentage, %30 - %40.

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1221
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Tue Jul 10, 2018 11:30 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:37 am
More extreme weather, as predicted by Hansen ("Loading the Climate Dice") years ago.
Japan is already dealing with unprecedented floods and now, quite independently, there's a Cat 5 typhoon heading for Taiwan -
TAIPEI (Taiwan News) -- Super Typhoon Maria is poised to strike northern Taiwan on Tuesday (July 10) and it is anticipated that the storm will take a full day to pass over the country, according to the Central Weather Bureau (CWB).

As the category 5 typhoon nears Taiwan, a sea warning is likely to be issued this afternoon and as the storm is estimated to have a 90 percent chance of striking northern and northeastern Taiwan, a land warning is likely in the early morning tomorrow, according to the CWB. The typhoon is expected to first impact at some point in the afternoon on Tuesday and continue to affect northern Taiwan until Wednesday afternoon. ... Maria is registering maximum sustained winds of 198 kilometers per hour with wind gusts of up to 244 kilometers per hour. ...
China will get it a day or two later.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3477436

:namaste:
Kim
Japan floods: Death toll hits 155 as Government struggles to restore utilities

Torrential rains unleashed floods and landslides in the west of the country last week, prompting Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to cancel an overseas trip to cope with the disaster, which at one point forced several million from their homes.

The landslides and flooding across much of western Japan have killed at least 155 people, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said.

More than 60 people were still unaccounted for as of this morning, many in the hardest-hit Hiroshima area. ...
:reading: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-10/j ... ch/9971820

:candle:
Kim

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1221
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Thu Jul 12, 2018 7:01 am

Update on Japanese floods -
Japan floods: Death toll rises to at least 195, as UN offers assistance
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-12/j ... 95/9985308

Taiwan got off relatively lightly -
CWB senior technical specialist Wu Wan-hua (伍婉華) said that Typhoon Maria had enveloped all of northern and eastern Taiwan, bringing with it heavy rain. By 6 a.m. this morning, heavy rain had been reported in many parts of northern Taiwan, including 387 mm in Taipei, 305 mm in Hsinchu County, 269 mm in Miaoli County, 254 mm in New Taipei, 245 mm in Taoyuan City, 244 in Taichung City, and 206 mm in Yilan.
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3479386

:namaste:
Kim

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Prof. Muller's summary of extreme weather trends

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:35 pm

From a blog post by Richard Muller, Prof Physics, UC Berkeley and co-founder of Berkeley Earth (climate change and air pollution research). Feb 2017.
In response to a question Muller says this about extreme weather and climate change:
There is no significant change in the rate of storms, or of violent storms, including hurricanes and volcanoes. The temperature variability is not increasing. There is no scientifically significant increase in floods or droughts. Even the widely reported warming of Alaska (“the canary in the mine”) doesn’t match the pattern of carbon dioxide increase; and it may have an explanation in terms of changes in the northern Pacific and Atlantic currents. Moreover, the standard climate models have done a very poor job of predicting the temperature rise in Antarctica, so we must be cautious about the danger of confirmation bias.
-- https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-wid ... -are-false [emphasis mine]
The pollsters aren’t to blame. Well, some of them are; they too can do a good poll and then misrepresent what it means. The real problem is that many people who fear global warming (include me) feel that it is necessary to exaggerate the meaning of the polls in order to get action from the public (don’t include me).

There is another way to misrepresent the results of the polls. Yes, 97% of those polled believe that there is human caused climate change. How did they reach that decision? Was it based on a careful reading of the IPCC report? Was it based on their knowledge of the potential systematic uncertainties inherent in the data? Or was it based on their fear that opponents to action are anti-science, so we scientists have to get together and support each other. There is a real danger in people with Ph.D.s joining a consensus that they haven’t vetted professionally.

I like to ask scientists who “believe” in global warming what they think of the data. Do they believe hurricanes are increasing? Almost never do I get the answer “Yes, I looked at that, and they are.” Of course they don’t say that, because if they did I would show them the actual data!
Do they say, “I’ve looked at the temperature record, and I agree that the variability is going up”? No. Sometimes they will say, “There was a paper by Jim Hansen that showed the variability was increasing.” To which I reply, “I’ve written to Jim Hansen about that paper, and he agrees with me that it shows no such thing. He even expressed surprise that his paper has been so misinterpreted.”

A really good question would be: “Have you studied climate change enough that you would put your scientific credentials on the line that most of what is said in An Inconvenient Truth is based on accurate scientific results?” My guess is that a large majority of the climate scientists would answer no to that question ... [emphasis mine]
Muller's general position on climate change:
“Do you believe that humans are affecting climate?” My answer would be yes. Humans are responsible for about a 1 degree C rise in the average temperature in the last 100 years. So I would be included as one of the 97% who believe.
References
http://berkeleyearth.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-wid ... -are-false
Muller's other posts on climate change and other topics: https://www.quora.com/profile/Richard-Muller-3

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:37 pm

from another blog by Richard Muller, CoFounder, Berkeley Earth, Prof Physics UC Berkeley, Energy for Future Presidents
Global warming is real, and caused by humans. Much of what is touted as “climate change” (e.g. greater variability in weather) is not scientifically established, and from my own analysis, probably false.

-- https://www.quora.com/It-is-claimed-tha ... eir-claims

User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Posts: 1221
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 3:07 am
Location: Tropical Queensland, Australia

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Kim O'Hara » Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:07 am

I don't know if you knew, Leeuwenhoek, but Muller and Berkeley Earth were initially funded by denialists including the Koch brothers in the expectation (or at least hope) that they would disprove the Hockey Stick. They rigorously re-examined all the data and concluded ... well, I will let RealClimate tell the story, since that's where I read it back in 2011.
Berkeley earthquake called off
Filed under: Climate Science — eric @ 24 October 2011

Anybody expecting earthshaking news from Berkeley, now that the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group being led by Richard Muller has released its results, had to be content with a barely perceptible quiver. As far as the basic science goes, the results could not have been less surprising if the press release had said “Man Finds Sun Rises At Dawn.” This must have been something of a disappointment for anyone hoping for something else.

For those not familiar with it, the purpose of Berkeley Earth was to create a new, independent compilation and assessment of global land surface temperature trends using new statistical methods and a wider range of source data. Expectations that the work would put teeth in accusations against CRU and GISTEMP led to a lot of early press, and an invitation to Muller to testify before Congress. However, the big news this week (e.g. this article by the BBC’s Richard Black) is that there is no discernible difference between the new results and those of CRU.

Muller says that “the biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK.” We find this very statement surprising. As we showed two years ago, any of various simple statistical analyses of the freely available data at the time showed that it was very very unlikely that the results would change. ...

If the Berkeley results are newsworthy, it is only because Muller had been perceived as an outsider (driven in part by trash-talking about other scientists), and has taken money from the infamous Koch brothers. People acting against expectation (“Man bites dog”) is always better news than the converse, something that Muller’s PR effort has exploited to the max. It does take some integrity to admit getting the same answer as those they had criticized, despite their preconceptions and the preconceptions of their funders. And we are pleased to see Muller’s statement that “This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.” ... But Muller’s framing of the Berkeley results is still odd. ...
:reading: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... alled-off/

There's a fair bit more to that blog post but it gets more technical and doesn't add much to the basic story, so I will let you go there if you like.

Since 2011, Muller and co have continued to test the accuracy - and patience - of mainstream climate scientists but, as far as I can see, with a similar degree of care for the truth. Although their respect for the truth often leads them to agree with the mainstream, they are still darlings of the denialists since any scientist with any credibility in climate science willing and able to cast any doubt on any mainstream climate science (and, by extension and spin, on all mainstream climate science) is so valuable to the denialists' misinformation campaign.

:namaste:
Kim

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:37 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:07 am
I don't know if you knew, Leeuwenhoek, but Muller and Berkeley Earth were initially funded by denialists including the Koch brothers in the expectation (or at least hope) that they would disprove the Hockey Stick. They rigorously re-examined all the data and concluded ... well, I will let RealClimate tell the story, since that's where I read it back in 2011.
Beyond the argumentum ad hominem what is your point? It seems to me nothing you write brings into question the ideas in my previous post except by ominous, "hand waving" implication.

As Muller and many others have observed, there is a significant element of climate campaigning that is based on fear of the other.
Based on the fear that opponents to action are anti-science, so we have to get together and support each other.

But I am not an opponent to action nor is Muller or I anti-science.

This next quote illustrates Muller's words:
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:07 am
Since 2011, Muller and co have continued to test the accuracy - and patience - of mainstream climate scientists but, as far as I can see, with a similar degree of care for the truth. Although their respect for the truth often leads them to agree with the mainstream, they are still darlings of the denialists since any scientist with any credibility in climate science willing and able to cast any doubt on any mainstream climate science (and, by extension and spin, on all mainstream climate science) is so valuable to the denialists' misinformation campaign.
[emphasis in italics by Kim O'Hara ]
Richard Muller wrote:Yes, 97% of those polled believe that there is human caused climate change. How did they reach that decision? Was it based on a careful reading of the IPCC report? Was it based on their knowledge of the potential systematic uncertainties inherent in the data? Or was it based on their fear that opponents to action are anti-science, so we scientists have to get together and support each other.
-- Richard Muller
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-wid ... -are-false
In fear based reasoning the virtue of testing the accuracy of science becomes a problem.
In fear based reasoning the normal practice of attending to reasonable doubt -- a virtue and norm of the scientific method -- becomes a vice.

All this, I admit, does "test my patience". Something that arises mostly because of clinging and ego ... a story that is well illustrated in the very human and ongoing history of science.

malcolm
Posts: 59
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:53 am

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by malcolm » Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:04 pm

Climate science is physics, physics is based in math. Because the math is good, the physics is good, the physics demonstrates that the hockey stick theorem is valid. We do not each of us need to become experts in physics to accept the findings of climate scientists, just as we do not each of us need to become physicians to accept our doctor's diagnosis.

Leeuwenhoek wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:37 am
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:07 am
I don't know if you knew, Leeuwenhoek, but Muller and Berkeley Earth were initially funded by denialists including the Koch brothers in the expectation (or at least hope) that they would disprove the Hockey Stick. They rigorously re-examined all the data and concluded ... well, I will let RealClimate tell the story, since that's where I read it back in 2011.
Beyond the argumentum ad hominem what is your point? It seems to me nothing you write brings into question the ideas in my previous post except by ominous, "hand waving" implication.

As Muller and many others have observed, there is a significant element of climate campaigning that is based on fear of the other.
Based on the fear that opponents to action are anti-science, so we have to get together and support each other.

But I am not an opponent to action nor is Muller or I anti-science.

This next quote illustrates Muller's words:
Kim O'Hara wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 2:07 am
Since 2011, Muller and co have continued to test the accuracy - and patience - of mainstream climate scientists but, as far as I can see, with a similar degree of care for the truth. Although their respect for the truth often leads them to agree with the mainstream, they are still darlings of the denialists since any scientist with any credibility in climate science willing and able to cast any doubt on any mainstream climate science (and, by extension and spin, on all mainstream climate science) is so valuable to the denialists' misinformation campaign.
[emphasis in italics by Kim O'Hara ]
Richard Muller wrote:Yes, 97% of those polled believe that there is human caused climate change. How did they reach that decision? Was it based on a careful reading of the IPCC report? Was it based on their knowledge of the potential systematic uncertainties inherent in the data? Or was it based on their fear that opponents to action are anti-science, so we scientists have to get together and support each other.
-- Richard Muller
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-wid ... -are-false
In fear based reasoning the virtue of testing the accuracy of science becomes a problem.
In fear based reasoning the normal practice of attending to reasonable doubt -- a virtue and norm of the scientific method -- becomes a vice.

All this, I admit, does "test my patience". Something that arises mostly because of clinging and ego ... a story that is well illustrated in the very human and ongoing history of science.

Leeuwenhoek
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 4:18 am

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Leeuwenhoek » Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:29 pm

malcolm wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:04 pm
Climate science is physics, physics is based in math. Because the math is good, the physics is good, the physics demonstrates that the hockey stick theorem is valid. We do not each of us need to become experts in physics to accept the findings of climate scientists, just as we do not each of us need to become physicians to accept our doctor's diagnosis.
It's not obvious to me how the hockey stick enters into the discussion at hand. But the idea of a "hockey stick theorem" could refer to several different things.

The paleo-climatology graph made famous by IPCC AR3 which popularly became known as the "hockey stick"was based on a somewhat unique statistical analysis of temperature proxies. Latter efforts also relied on temperature proxies. Interpreting proxies often physics in some sense. But then physics in some sense is required in most measures of weather.

The statements about extreme weather I quoted in recent posts have been demonstrated to be valid 'because of physics'. Although normally I'd just say they are based on weather records.

The validity of what I've said has been assessed for the public by the summaries of the IPCC report (AR5 WG1) as well as the more recent Climate updates: progress since the fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC (Oct 2017) by The Royal Society.

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... e-updates/
See question six of https://royalsociety.org/~/media/policy ... report.pdf

Pseudobabble
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:00 am

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Pseudobabble » Sun Jul 15, 2018 5:48 am

malcolm wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 3:04 pm
Climate science is physics, physics is based in math. Because the math is good, the physics is good, the physics demonstrates that the hockey stick theorem is valid. We do not each of us need to become experts in physics to accept the findings of climate scientists, just as we do not each of us need to become physicians to accept our doctor's diagnosis.
The logic goes:
1: We can rely on the experts
2: The experts say X
3: Therefore X

Unfortunately, this is merely an argument from authority, as you personally have not validated the findings - you just trust the word of the scientists. Nothing wrong with that, I'd trust the word of a climate scientist on the climate sooner than I'd trust the word of a priest on the climate. But don't dress it up as something unassailable when the fact is that you trust their word based on your perception of their role in the world as truth-bearers.

Pseudobabble
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:00 am

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Pseudobabble » Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:14 pm

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 11:49 am
All I've got time to say right now to the pair of you is that your statements may be logically impeccable but their consequences in the real world are overwhelmingly negative.
Whether you know it or not, whether you want them to or not, statements like this make you Merchants of Doubt.

:reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
:reading: https://www.resilience.org/stories/2010 ... nts-doubt/

:namaste:
Kim
I am just cynical about it.

I don't believe we understand the topic as well as we think, mainly because we cannot tell the difference between a random series of events, and a trend.

I'm not sure there is a way to develop a mass mobilisation framework capable of dealing with global problems, without a tyrannical government.

I don't believe people know their own motives well enough to justify mass action, particularly on the basis of incomplete information.

The fact that humans are psychologically incapable of motivating themselves without a justificatory narrative makes doing anything on a large, coordinated scale very dangerous, as the mass movements of the 20th Century showed us.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2018 8:30 pm
Location: US occupied Northern Mexico

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by lyndon taylor » Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:40 pm

What could possibly be dangerous about switching to renewable energy!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk.

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

Pseudobabble
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:00 am

Re: Climate science and statistics - omnibus thread

Post by Pseudobabble » Tue Jul 17, 2018 4:02 pm

lyndon taylor wrote:
Tue Jul 17, 2018 1:40 pm
What could possibly be dangerous about switching to renewable energy!!
Nothing, in principle. But have a little think about whether we've shown any aptitude for actually doing this on the scale required. I don't think we have. Countries think nothing of breaking their climate change commitments. And if that's the case, how would you suggest enforcing such commitments?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests