Comments carboncat has made

  • yes, they're rising, but

    at the rate of 1 mm per year. expect that there is a very real possibility that all these horrendous sea rises you keep predicting might not happen.
    what will you do? turn to god? become a republican? pack your bags and travel the (perfectly healthy) world? nobody knows...
    On A must-read article from Science on the underestimation of climate change impacts posted 2 years, 2 months ago 7 Responses

  • the science is settled (again)

    The vast majority of the scientists in the relevant research areas say so.
    Oh yeah, I forgot. "the science is settled."  
    Argument by authority pure and simple.
    But we don't need to know the details of the science. We have scientists for that. All we need to do is listen to them
    Um, that's called religion, not science.
    They're not communing with God or anything, you know. The whole thing is 100% transparent.
    But at least you're honest. Not interested in questioning what you are told, because you trust them, and because it fits with your worldview. Can't say I blame you, because quite frankly, that's a potent combination.
    However, I get tired of discussions ending in either "the science is settled, don't you know" or "hey you must be a Republican". Time to go. It's been fun, folks. For the most part you've been quite enjoyable to debate with.
    On Some reviews and criticism of Bjorn Lomborg's new book Cool It posted 2 years, 2 months ago 18 Responses

  • god might exist

    and if he does, he will smite all non-believers and condemn us to eternal damnation.
    or, he might not.
    Gee, you might say, a very big "might." Every time someone denies God, they're gambling with their soul.
    Likewise for global warming. Although I'm gambling with Baby Earth if I'm wrong, I refuse to believe until I'm presented with compelling evidence for the global danger.
    Argument by fearmongering needs to stop.
    (btw what's the single most compelling piece of evidence that the Earth's climate is in danger? I want to know)On Some reviews and criticism of Bjorn Lomborg's new book Cool It posted 2 years, 2 months ago 18 Responses

  • good answer

    sounds like the core argument for you is Monbiot's 4 points. Fair enough. I would suggest to you that the weakest point is 2, followed by 4. 2 because the value, importance, and durability of the effect can vary from minuscule to enormous.
    4 because all animals produce carbon dioxide, and always have- we're just doing it in a different way.

    re "climate catastrophe", I think the biggest issue surrounding climate science is the massive misinformation campaign evidenced in the work of Al Gore and others. Scientists have been too slow to call bs on flagrant exaggeration, oversimplification, and frankly, fearmongering.
    Talk to non-scientists about the climate. Mostly they have a vague idea that "global warming will get us all in 20 years" (I heard that exact sentence last week).
    Crichton was right: science should be banishing demons, not creating them, yet here we are.
    Therefore, when I see the anti-skeptic brigade on one hand tacitly supporting the most extreme, outrageous, and unsubstantiated claims and on the other hand, weazeling out of making such claims themselves ("catastrophe? who said anything about a catastrophe?")
    I'll stop here, without addressing the economic question. another time.On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • uncertainty

    we may very well cross some temperature threshold
    ...or we may not. However, I'm glad to see that the doomsayers are starting to admit that they might be wrong. That can only be good for public debate, and for science.On Some reviews and criticism of Bjorn Lomborg's new book Cool It posted 2 years, 2 months ago 18 Responses

  • Tyler Cowen's "review"

    mkayser:
    how can you say that? the review is a mere 500 words, and is simply a list of assertions (which the Cohen readily admits with the sentence "I would instead claim the following").On Some reviews and criticism of Bjorn Lomborg's new book Cool It posted 2 years, 2 months ago 18 Responses

  • I'll ask my question again

    What, in your mind, is the killer evidence of impending catastrophe? Please don't tell me to go read this or that, I want to know: what is the most convincing evidence to you?

    Dismantle modern industrialised economies.   That is a reach isn't it?
    Industrialised economies are built on fossil fuels. It's not clear that a 'transition' will be as painless as you think. On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • since you asked

    1) Dr X.

    You just claim scientists disagree on GHG climate disaster.  You don't cite any of these scientists or what they have said.

    I've ignored the assertion that all climate scientists agree because it is simply wrong on face: c.f. Lindzen. I don't want to get dragged into a person-by-person slugmatch about who is worth listening to and who isn't.

    2) Greenman

    give us your version of why there is no warming

    I'll answer this in good faith, although I sense it isn't being asked in good faith (judging by your facetious attempts to suggest my "answers" on my behalf).
    So here it is in a nutshell. First, I'm not asserting that there is no warming. Temperatures seem to have gone up. However, what I am skeptical of is the preventable-man-made-disaster scenario. In short, I have not seen conclusive scientific evidence for this. I'll do a whistlestop tour of some of the evidence, (and ignore your rolling eyes).

    C02 driving warming: weak evidence. the correlation is quite weak across the 20th century, the most startling example being the post world war ii dip in temperatures while CO2 production increased.
    Sure, I know there are explanations. however, the fact remains that those explanations assume the thing they are setting out to prove. It is simply not conclusive that CO2 is the main driver of Earth's temperature.

    warming is "bad": weak evidence. will rainfall increase? will crops boom? will the oceans rise by (pick an incredible number)? unknown. No conclusive evidence that there will be drastic ocean rises, desertification, spread of malaria, etc. Case not closed.

    warming will increase linearly given current situation: unknown. people are buying property using the same fallacious reasoning (linear extrapolation).
    unpredictable events such as volcanos, pollutants, etc. can cause cooling. changes in the atmospheric composition with chemicals that are not currently important can cause cooling. (devils advocate position: polluting the atmosphere is the simplest way to cool the planet! joking)

    reversal of previous evidence: ice core data, & hockey stick, for example, are no longer considered strong evidence for the case. now, people claim, they were never important. US data has been revised, and yes, I know it makes no difference to the global trends, but those US "hottest summer on record again" reports have been used to win the media war.

    In short, I don't think the case has been made. Therefore, I'm skeptical until I see the killer evidence that everyone claims is there but I've never been shown. You all must have seen some amazing proof that I don't know about.
    I'm prepared to be convinced. Like everyone, I'm resistant because admitting you're wrong is hard, and is embarrassing. But so far, all I see is media spin.On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • who's the troll?

    DrX (sorry, "the amazing Dr X"), in terms of content and debating style, your comments resemble trolling much more closely than mine. The only "troll" factor in my comments is that they're not in keeping with the position of gristmill. Despite this, I think I've been coherent, on-topic, and respectful.
    On the other hand, you make personal attacks, take threads on tangents, make no coherent points, say things just to be inflammatory etc... that's trolling.On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • yes!

    Is it possble for this feedback loop -- the chemical weathering -- to set a limit on atmospheric CO2 even if humans continue to burn fossil fuel?

    Yes, it is possible. Of course, nobody knows for sure, but it cannot be ruled out. On More ammo against skeptics posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

  • 3 points

    1) Dr X: "Some scientists who are also dimbulb limboobs disbelieve  GHG climate disaster." your prototypical "denier" is Limbaugh? That's about as reasonable as the prototypical believer being Bin Laden, who recently talked about climate change in a propaganda video.
    It's a political tactic you're using: pick the most objectionable person who holds your opponents' point of view, and use them as the representative of that point of view.

    2)

    that old "it's just a theory/hypothesis" nonsense is lame.  the theory of gravity is just a theory too, right?  So deny it by jumping off a cliff.  Please?

    Oh. My. God. Well, one thing's clear, you're not a physicist. Newton's theory of gravity is not notable for predicting that heavy things fall, but for describing planetary orbits. People already knew that cliffs were dangerous before Isaac Newton came along.

    3) Trock, "We should leave a much larger safety margin than not caring at all."
    this is a very common argument  about climate change: we should act, because the consequences are so severe if it turns out to be true.

    This logic is identical to Pascal's wager. He said that you're better off believing in the Christian God, because if you're a Christian and you're wrong, you meet the same fate as everyone else (nothing is lost), but if you're an atheist and you're wrong, you burn in hell. Therefore, you're better off being a Christian.

    Global warming is Pascal's wager all over again. however, if your primary concern is the truth, the wager is unimportant. Keep in mind, too, there is jeopardy on both sides.
    If the imminent catastrophe hypothesis is true, then we have to basically dismantle modern industrialised economies. That's a pretty big price to pay for a hypothesis. For this reason it deserves more scrutiny than most other scientific claims. Yet people are saying "shut up! don't question it! the science is in!"On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • the science isn't "in"

    If the science was in, there would be no scientists that disagree. For instance, there are no chemists that believe in alchemy. When the same is true for the global warming hypothesis, then the science is in.
    btw the hypothesis is not "the globe is warming", that's banal. The AGW hypothesis is that this will continue, will end in catastrophe for humans, and is preventable through C02 reduction. That's a hypothesis.
    Oceans rising by thirty feet? hypothesis. malaria spreading across the developed world? hypothesis. hundreds of millions of deaths due to famines, climate refugees and water shortages? hypothesis.
    The debate doesn't finish because one side declares themselves the winners.On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • on being a contrarian

    eriga,
    I agree with you that most science is pretty boring, and that's how it should be. That whole "against the establishment" thing was fun when I was a hot-headed undergraduate some time ago, but I'm way past the age of wanting to rebel.
    In the case of global warming, I think it's much "groovier" to toe the line.
    Global warming means you get to oppose big business, oil companies, hummers, people who drive hummers, various wars (especially those involving oil, and which result in large amounts of fuel burning), conspicuous consumption, and George Bush. That sounds pretty sexy to me.
    Trust me, if I could believe it, I would.On 'They predicted global cooling in the 70s'--But that didn't even remotely resemble today's consensus posted 2 years, 2 months ago 29 Responses

  • Dr X:

    Dr X, you continue to use inflammmatory, derogatory terms for people who disagree with you. You seem to think every skeptic's opinion is driven by politics. You advocate ridicule over reasoned discussion.
    Therefore, I think you're in the wrong game. Forget science. Politics is more for you. (seriously)On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • asymmetry in scientific debate

    They aren't really "Skeptics" unless they are skeptical about BOTH sides of the issue.

    There's an asymmetry in the debate however.
    One side of the argument has a complicated, highly structured theory which says that urgent political action and financial expense is needed to avert disaster. The other side has no such elegant theory. Or, to put it another way, the AGW position claims
    1. humans are creating too much C02
    2. C02 is driving temperature change
    3. this will continue
    4. at a point in the near future the increase in temperature will be highly detrimental or catastrophic
    5. this is preventable through CO2 reduction

    Skeptics think that at least one of those propositions is likely to be false. They don't have a contested theory, they are merely skeptical about this existing scientific theory. If even one of these pillars is wrong, the whole edifice comes down.
    It's a bit like arguing against fundamentalist Christians. They complain that you're too negative, because one minute you're talking about cosmology, the next you're criticizing the historical record. They don't get that these things don't need to have anything in common. For the skeptic, it's about shedding doubt on the different components of their much-loved theory.

    Coming back to the title, I was actually much more intrigued by the "more ammo" part than the word "skeptic", because it betrayed the truth: facts are merely weapons for defending the theory. The theory comes first, the facts ("more ammo") come later.On More ammo against skeptics posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

  • that's not exactly the way to win hearts, dr X

    the longer you characterise people who disagree, (or just plain aren't convinced) as "nut wings" "lomboobs" and part of a giant conspiracy to delay renewable energy, direct mass media and control public policy, the harder your job will be.
    face your own delusions (like your imaginary right-wing conspiracy of oil, coal, war-mongerers and capitalists all ganging up on honest, poor-but-hard-working scientists) before you take on the perceived delusions of others.On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 2 months ago 28 Responses

  • a very nice post there Jones

    ...and an eloquent defense of science.
    I would add that in reality, big scientific ideas and research programs - "paradigms" - gain momentum, and are carried forward by their own methodology and assumptions, even when they begin to fail.
    In reality, most scientists are so deeply embedded in their own network of knowledge, theories, instruments, and methodologies, it is hard to see when their chosen paradigm is heading in the wrong direction. On 'They predicted global cooling in the 70s'--But that didn't even remotely resemble today's consensus posted 2 years, 3 months ago 29 Responses

  • no, it's the other way around

    the "Dark Ages" is when you can't debate things freely.
    Convincing every "curmudgeon, contrarian and flat-earther" is the price you pay for playing the games called "science" and "open society."

    Take Creationism. Now, there are many, many more respectable scientists who doubt global warming than doubt evolution (by several orders of magnitude).
    Yet look at the care and detail that prominent evolutionists such as Dawkins and Dennett (and before them Gould) take in explaining why evolution is right and creationism is wrong. They treat their audience with respect, and they treat the issues seriously and with attention to detail.

    That's the opposite of the approach I see in the climate debate, particularly online. For example, this post that we're discussing is nothing more than an emotive reaction to the fact that people disagree with the author. Furthermore, these people apparently have no credibility because they disagree.On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 28 Responses

  • Katrina was not made more intense by warming

    "Nor am I saying global warming caused Hurricane Katrina, although warming probably did make it more intense."

    I have to call you on this one.
    No serious scientist is making any such claim. Katrina was just your standard, super-destructive, awesome, hurricane. It had nothing to do with global warming.On When it comes to climate change, prevention is more important than adaptation posted 2 years, 3 months ago 15 Responses

  • "why must we debate?"

    you ask: "How many times do we have to hear these clowns out?"
    the answer: until you convincingly win the debate, or are shown to be wrong. Despite your conviction that your position is the correct one (and maybe you are right), the debate isn't over by a long shot.
    If the oceans rise by 20 feet, hurricanes increase in frequency and intensity, there are worldwide food shortages, etc etc, bingo, you win. In the meantime, keep preaching, but we Doubting Thomases will continue to doubt.On Why do documented liars and dummies get taken seriously about climate change? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 28 Responses

  • skeptic is the right word

    no, I think "skeptic" is quite appropriate.
    There's a theory. There are people who are uncertain about the veracity of that theory.
    A contrarian disagrees with everything for the sake of disagreeing. A 'skeptic' expresses doubts about someone else's claim.
    For exmaple: you're claiming that we're headed for a preventable man-made global climate catastrophe. I'm skeptical about that claim.
    On More ammo against skeptics posted 2 years, 3 months ago 14 Responses

  • interesting title

    "more ammo against skeptics"
    Historians of science will one day look back at headlines like this and shake their heads.
    On More ammo against skeptics posted 2 years, 3 months ago 14 Responses

  • that's not science

    Warreno:

    "First the snide answer: the engine processor in your car has numerous parameters that get tweaked to keep it running, but I don't hear any complaints."

    the snide response: if you think that's an appropriate metaphor for the developing and testing scientific ideas, you're not even at first base. For instance, your technique results in entrenching existing theories even when they don't match the facts, because they can be "tweaked" so that they do.
    This makes disproof all but impossible for even the worst theories, and makes the existing models essentially unfalsifiable. On 'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts posted 2 years, 3 months ago 13 Responses

  • Svante Arrhenius? come on, give us some credit

    Come on. Are you really claiming that Svante Arrhenius was a major scientist of his day? that his views had widespread acceptance? that his predictions came to pass in anything more than a vague, heuristic sense? This guy has been cherry-picked from obscurity to add to an already full-bloom hindsight bias.
    And it's included in an article on the effectiveness of modeling! Scientific pollution at its worst. On 'Climate models are unproven'--Actually, GCM's have many confirmed successes under their belts posted 2 years, 3 months ago 13 Responses

  • global cooling- a salutory lesson

    Coby, if you're going to talk about the global cooling scare, the least you could do is use it as a salutory lesson on the fallibility of scientific prediction.
    Yet you, and others, dismiss it so quickly that it seems like more of an inconvenience to be smoothed over. You're in too much of a rush to despatch the global cooling annoyance, and not ready to really sit back and take a neutral, disinterested look at what's going on here.
     On 'They predicted global cooling in the 70s'--But that didn't even remotely resemble today's consensus posted 2 years, 3 months ago 29 Responses

  • "thoroughly investigated?"

    I noticed that you linked to an article by Thomas Peterson:
    " 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures."
    um, he looked within a narrow range of 2 years - in US-only data - and didn't find a significant effect. That's not exactly a refutation. On 'Warming is due to the Urban Heat Island effect' -- No, it isn't posted 2 years, 3 months ago 25 Responses

  • the data fits the model in hindsight

    You know the problem with this post? That chart, courtesy of Global Warming Art, that shows the correlation between the reality and the model. Why is it a problem? Because the modeling was done in hindsight!
    It's easy to fit a model to existing data. And you don't have to be consciously trying to cheat either. It's a natural human tendency.
    For example, around 1900 the data and the model fit almost perfectly. Yet nobody was doing climate modeling of this kind in 1900.
    Therefore, the chart is nothing more than an exercise in PR. It's not science.On 'What about mid-century cooling?'--No one said CO2 is the only climate influence posted 2 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses