Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Like magic!
Fighting climate change may seem like a Hail Mary pass, but the New Orleans Super Bowl Host Committee is running a play, called Geaux Green, to tackle the emissions from the big game between the San Francisco 49′ers and the Baltimore Ravens. The Committee also developed a game plan for fans to block their own emissions from blitzing the planet’s atmosphere.
The electricity used by the Superdome, team hotels and other Super Bowl related venues will total approximately 4,500 megawatts and make Earth the receiver of 3.8 million pounds of carbon dioxide pollution. That gas release will be intercepted by the purchase of carbon credits at three different locations.
Fans can get some anti-climate-change game time by buying carbon credits to offset the pollution footprint they create when going long to travel to New Orleans. The Geaux Green website provides fans a means of calculating their carbon pollution and buying credits to sack their emissions.
Armchair carbon quarterbacks can get in the game too. The Geaux Green website features a game in which fans can vote for which NFL team has the most environmentally friendly fans. Participants are encouraged to pledge to run eco-friendly plays, such as using fluorescent bulbs, carpooling or planting a tree.
Hat tip to Steven Goddard. Your purchase of carbon credits will intercept your gas release. Coolness!
Mkay. So this is the part where we all say “Okay, this doesn’t have anything to do with saving the planet, it’s a prestige/status symbol for some, and a racket for others.” Right? I mean, this is not the way people behave when they really think something important is at stake. Not with the “tragedy of the commons.” Okay, let me make it even more obvious: With competition, you go “hooray, those other guys aren’t getting with the program, we’re going to cream them.” With a looming crisis, the tragedy-of-commons type of crisis, you say “hey, you other guys…get with the damn program!” This, according to its own propaganda, is the first of those two. Not the second of those two. But you’re supposed to log on and see which “side” can pull ahead.
It’s all science-y. And junk.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I don’t buy carbon credit indulgences for the same reason I don’t celebrate Earth Day: Gaia worship isn’t my religion.
- Captain Midnight | 01/31/2013 @ 20:11As long as you refuse to consider the evidence for climate change, you will continue to be befuddled by events.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 06:10If there was a possibility, let alone a near “scientific” certainty, of the doomsday scenarios coming about due to carbon saturation, the logical thing to do would be to cancel the Super Bowl now & forevermore. Also, we’d reject, forever, this whole notion of “developed” versus “developing” nations; what good does it do to be given license to pollute so that your nation can develop, on a doomed planet?
So once again we see, if there’s anything to be studied in a scientific way to solve some kind of puzzle, it is the behavior of people. Our species is flawed, and it is in our programming to be drawn to the idea that we’re among the last generations of the species to enjoy life, that the end is coming, and we have brought it about. There is substantial written history to back this up, we are drawn to it like a moth to a flame.
Also, it looks like everyone likes to be a junior officer, a mid-level executive; with high enough rank to tell others what to do and be spared from the “real” work, but low enough that it’s up to someone else to form the vision, with the “officers” of this station simply falling in to line, doing what’s expected of them. Comparing scores, to see if our side beat their side. It’s a comfort zone thing.
Put it together with a science-y imminent doomsday scenario, and as this report shows, with that concoction you get pure nonsense. We’re going to compete, by logging on to the Internet, while we watch the Super Bowl, and see if we do a better job saving the planet than those other guys, over there, who we hope suck at it. Don’t dare question it or you show you fail to understand science.
PURE nonsense. If I’d invented this scam…why, yes, I suppose I would be befuddled. “What?? It worked??” I’d end up grimacing, rather than laughing, all the way to the bank.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 07:00mkfreeberg: If there was a possibility, let alone a near “scientific” certainty, of the doomsday scenarios coming about due to carbon saturation, the logical thing to do would be to cancel the Super Bowl now & forevermore.
No. There’s no reason to do that. There are solutions that allow for continued prosperity and development. It’s a transitional process.
mkfreeberg: Our species is flawed, and it is in our programming to be drawn to the idea that we’re among the last generations of the species to enjoy life, that the end is coming, and we have brought it about.
Well, maybe you’re all doom and gloom because when confronted with a complex problem, you retreat into simple platitudes, but there are a number of very plausible solutions to climate change. There is every reason to believe humans will continue to prosper.
mkfreeberg: There is substantial written history to back this up, we are drawn to it like a moth to a flame.
Sure, for instance, with air and water pollution. Rivers on fire. Children not being able to play outside. And yet, laws were passed, people changed. Every industrialized country has gone through this process. China’s going through it now.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 07:09http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/02/01/beijings-murky-air-pollution-measures/‘
Right. And you continue to demonstrate the psychological quirks. I’m not along for the ride, so I must misunderstand the science…even though, in 600+ posts, and with four or five other people under your critical science-y inspection, you can’t explain how any of us have misunderstood anything that actually matters. So, thanks for proving my point.
This is about politics, one class of people being given power over another class. And making huge piles of moolah. To the extent it is about science, it is about the psychology of successful scams.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 07:13mkfreeberg: you can’t explain how any of us have misunderstood anything that actually matters
Well, you’ve decided that the scientific findings don’t “actually matter” to you, so there you are.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 07:18Even granting for sake of argument that they matter, you STILL haven’t been able to do it.
You live in a comfort zone that anybody who disagrees with you must misunderstand something. Shown this is not the case, you cling to it like Linus to his blanket…what we end up studying, is actually the science of bad science. And yeah, maybe a paper should be written about that.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 07:19mkfreeberg: Even granting for sake of argument that they matter, you STILL haven’t been able to do it.
Of course the facts matter. We’ve addressed the facts in the appropriate thread.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 07:26Zachriel: Well, you’ve decided that the scientific findings don’t “actually matter” to you, so there you are.
NO. This is not now nor has it ever been the case. We have decided that your findings are not, in fact, scientific. When you start massaging data to fit theory, you are no longer testing the theory, and you are no longer acting scientifically. And covering it up by saying “But there’s problems with the data” isn’t sufficient to explain why the Holy Blessed Model Explaining Everything is the standard by which the data is judged.
Again, it’s re-rolling the dice to get the one outcome that lets you win. Then, when the other players protest, you claim that you added the dice correctly, you moved the proper number of spaces, you followed the rule on the card – all things that may well be true but that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is that you simply ignored the rolls that made you lose.
- nightfly | 02/01/2013 @ 09:03nightfly: We have decided that your findings are not, in fact, scientific.
You can only address that question by analyzing the data. Nearly all science works with less than perfect data. Multiple measurements, independent measures, and statistical analysis can help provide reliable trends. Here’s a recent analysis of surface temperatures confirming the warming trend:
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project
http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
Here’s a comparison of multiple measures showing trends at different altitudes:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 09:15http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
“Data,” or “findings”?
You have a tendency to intermingle these terms, so caught up do you get in lecturing us for not reading the things you think we should be reading. This is not correct, and it further supports my contention that this is not really about science. Except where it concerns human psychology.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 09:33mkfreeberg: You have a tendency to intermingle these terms, so caught up do you get in lecturing us for not reading the things you think we should be reading.
We reread our comment, and the distinction is quite clear. The Berkeley project takes the original data and independent from previous analyses determines the trend, including tests to account for urban heat island effect and other problems. See Rohde et al, Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process, 2012.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 09:42http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/methods-paper.pdf
My comment is also clear.
The science is not “valid” and cannot be valid, unless things are recognized for what they really are. This is not the scientific method. This is a demonstration of the logical contortions that must be completed in order to make the alwarmist viewpoint appear to be a reasonable or truthful one, and the contortions minimally required are quite considerable.
The entire discourse in The Thread That Matters could be summarized as:
Orthodoxy: As shown in the Futurama “None Like It Hot” film, GHG’s trap all these sunbeam carcasses and cause the Earth to warm. We can project that over the next [blank] years, the mean global temperature will increase by [blank] degrees. So, buy your offset vouchers before the big game, then go to the stadium and have an awesome time.
Reality: Projections: Fail.
Me: Okay, that’s nonsense for a lot of reasons, starting with the heavy-pendulum thing; if such-and-such a force, or energy expenditure, changes the dynamics by this much, it will require a GREATER expenditure to shove it further out of whack. There is no tipping point. This is a problem to be encountered after what Phil said, that the insulatory property of the GHG acts like blankets, so that more blankets does not necessarily mean things get warmer. So I reject the premise that carbon saturation is leading to an apocalypse, or that inspecting historical saturation readings or temperature readings can predict such an event.
Z: But you have to look at the data/findings, even if you reject the premise of what can be predicted.
M: They don’t matter, if I reject the premise.
Z: You’re refusing to look at the data/findings. You have to look at them.
M: But I reject the premise.
Z: But you have to look at them.
M: But I reject the premise.
Z: But you have to look at them.
M: But I reject the premise.
Z: But you have to look at them.
M: But I reject the premise.
Z: But you have to look at them.
M: But I reject the premise.
Z: But you have to look at them.
M: But I reject the premise.
Z: But you have to look at them.
M: But I reject the premise.
:
:
:
:
:
ad infinitum.
You just haven’t participated in the dialogue. And then you say it’s everyone else who isn’t participating, because we don’t look at what you tell us to look at. (Others do look at it, and find entirely legitimate problems with what is ascertained from it, and you essentially “squirt” those problems away with your rhetorical squid ink.)
Now you could say, “YES, you’re right, we cannot predict the future from past events, science is working on that but it is in an infantile stage, so right now not much is known about it.” That would be honest. But it would reinforce the point that there is no predictable disastrous event here, therefore, it’s not fitting for people to get worked up about it. So, you squirt the ink.
While looking for some evidence that someone might be speaking outside of their knowledge base and therefore making mistakes. So you can crow about it when you find it. But failing to do this, over 625 posts.
There is no science to be inspected here. Except the science that has to do with human psychology.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 09:53mkfreeberg: The science is not “valid” and cannot be valid, unless things are recognized for what they really are.
Yes.
mkfreeberg: This is not the scientific method.
Analyzing data using statistics is not part of the scientific method? Since when?
mkfreeberg: Okay, that’s nonsense for a lot of reasons, starting with the heavy-pendulum thing; if such-and-such a force, or energy expenditure, changes the dynamics by this much, it will require a GREATER expenditure to shove it further out of whack. There is no tipping point.
That’s what you’re claiming, but never show. Indeed, the historical evidence of climate change contradicts the notion that the Earth’s climate is a simple periodic system.
mkfreeberg: the insulatory property of the GHG acts like blankets, so that more blankets does not necessarily mean things get warmer. So I reject the premise that carbon saturation is leading to an apocalypse, or that inspecting historical saturation readings or temperature readings can predict such an event.
So, you reject even the possibility of using “data” to make “findings” concerning “predictions” about the climate. That’s what we thought you said.
Nightfly says it has to do with problems with how scientists are analyzing data, which we addressed above.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 10:11I reject the premise.
If this is real science, your next move would be to show me how predictable future trends are, based on past observations.
Your consistent maneuvering has been to “make” me look at those observations, make some more predictions, insist without any evidence at ALL that these are the “best” ones, and grind into the minutiae of what the science is doing about the residual uncertainty involved in climate predictions, as a substitute for the honest acknowledgment that this predictive science is not all-that-and-a-bag-of-chips just yet.
And I get the impression, for whatever reason, that this is a discussion we cannot really have. Hence my remarks about “alpha channel” several months ago; you seem to be operating from a limited mindset in which “Sixty percent chance the temperature will increase 3 degrees in a hundred years” translates to “The temperature WILL increase 3 degrees in a hundred years.” Very much like saving a 32-bit image, with a transparency plane, in 24-bit mode without transparency. I believe I’m the only one to use that analogy, but I am not the only one to notice this pattern. You do not appear to be able to comprehend uncertainties, and with those, you remain unable to discuss probabilities. Or, acknowledge the simple fact that science in a specific discipline happens to be in an infantile state, as real science often is. You can only acknowledge that it is “flawed” and “self correcting” and such…but, not that the science is doing what it should be doing, venturing into a domain of knowledge in which it actually understands very little. So little, in fact, that it has no business forecasting climate calamity, let alone advocating for policy proposals to address it.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 10:28mkfreeberg: Your consistent maneuvering has been to “make” me look at those observations
The dastard!
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 10:38Yup. A round-robin of Internet fighting. And then there’s science. Those are two different things. Not the same.
- mkfreeberg | 02/01/2013 @ 10:39Nightfly says it has to do with problems with how scientists are analyzing data, which we addressed above.
Except that you didn’t. You cited papers and such, sure, but they all come from the same biases. The Berkeley Team paper you linked, for example, talks about volcanoes and a “proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions.” What proxy? They’re using pre-existing temperature readings: would these be the same data archives that you said were hopelessly flawed, or the ones that others “corrected” previously, or is it finally the actual recorded data? They say they’ve addressed issues raised by skeptics: “These do not unduly bias the results.” But the link that this paper provides to the raw data set? Well, it returns a 404 to me when I click it. I get a complete description of all the things they do to streamline that data, and graphs of their conclusions – but the data, submitted as-is for peer review? I sure hope someone got a cache or a screen cap of that page.
In other words – “see we followed the card, we moved the right number of spaces, now you must obey the rule,” and ignoring how many re-rolls it took to get the desired outcome. It can only be repeated until it finally sinks in: starting with the desired conclusion in mind is not scientific. The facts get twisted to fit the theory; the data is massaged to fit the model of expectations.
- nightfly | 02/01/2013 @ 10:42nightfly: The Berkeley Team paper you linked, for example, talks about volcanoes and a “proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions.” What proxy?
The logarithm of CO2 concentration. CO2 is only one anthropogenic greenhouse gas, but they are using it as a simplified approximation for all such gases. See Rohde et al., A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature, 2012.
nightfly: They’re using pre-existing temperature readings: would these be the same data archives that you said were hopelessly flawed, or the ones that others “corrected” previously, or is it finally the actual recorded data?
We didn’t say they were “hopelessly flawed”, quite the contrary. But the raw data has obvious problems, such as discontinuities that have to be considered. The Berkeley projected started with the raw data. The traditional process is homogenization, where discontinuities are identified, then the pieces spliced together into a continuous record. The Berkeley project uses a new technique that treats them as separate records. Nevertheless, they found the same general trend in surface temperatures.
nightfly: Well, it returns a 404 to me when I click it. I get a complete description of all the things they do to streamline that data, and graphs of their conclusions – but the data, submitted as-is for peer review?
We just downloaded several data-sets.
nightfly: The facts get twisted to fit the theory; the data is massaged to fit the model of expectations.
That’s why the Berkeley project was formed, to provide an independent analysis of the data. They confirmed the work of previous researchers.
- Zachriel | 02/01/2013 @ 11:32It’s always been interesting to me that climate alarmists don’t take action in their own lives to prepare for a future in which any of the touted results of climate change will have had their disastrous effect. No move to sell waterfront property and buy up in the hills. No move to invest in property at higher latitudes. Just a demand that other people should modify their behavior in order to pursue expensive remedial measures. In the meantime, evidence keeps coming in to contradict the models’ projections, thus undermining any pretense at a scientific approach. (When you keep predicting things that don’t come true, you may or may not have correctly identified a trend in the evidence, but you haven’t grasped causation well enough to justify any particular remedy.)
In all the years I’ve been reading about this controversy, I’ve rarely seen a warmist move from a conviction that the climate is warming to a proof that man is causing it, and I’ve never seen one move from a belief that man is causing it to a demonstration that the proposed solutions will do more good than harm. It’s a kind of shoddy and evasive thinking that can’t be disguised in a flow of pseudo-scientific jargon.
- Texan99 | 02/03/2013 @ 00:06Texan99: I’ve rarely seen a warmist move from a conviction that the climate is warming to a proof that man is causing it,
Be happy to discuss the evidence. We could start with the evidence for greenhouse warming.
Texan99: and I’ve never seen one move from a belief that man is causing it to a demonstration that the proposed solutions will do more good than harm.
That’s an important consideration, but one which requires understand the extent of the problem before being addressed.
- Zachriel | 02/03/2013 @ 07:41“That’s an important consideration, but one which requires understand the extent of the problem before being addressed.”
You can’t discuss the balance of good and harm until you can get some idea of the size of both. If I’m talking to someone who has fully formed ideas of what he wants to do to prevent a problem that hasn’t happened yet, it’s up to him to persuade me both that the bad thing is likely to happen and how costly it’s likely to be. Only then can we confer intelligently on whether the solution will do more harm than good.
So, yes, you would have to understand the extent of the problem you’re predicting, and you’d have to persuade people you were roughly right about the scale of the cost, by occasionally making a prediction that panned out. Then we could start discussing how much your solution will cost. And when that’s all done, you would be in a position to ask people to support your proposed solution. Until then, you’re seriously premature, no matter how many synonyms for “urgent” you use.
- Texan99 | 02/03/2013 @ 08:38Texan99: You can’t discuss the balance of good and harm until you can get some idea of the size of both.
That’s correct, but if there is no significant anthropogenic climate change occurring, then there’s no reason to even consider policy options.
- Zachriel | 02/03/2013 @ 09:07Likewise, if there are no policies under discussion that would be less destructive than even the worst predicted effects of warming (setting aside for the moment whether the evidence, such as it is, supports the wilder assertions), then there’s no reason to harangue us constantly about your theories on what causes warming and what should be done about it. We can simply agree to disagree about what’s most likely to happen, then get ready to combat the effects of warming if they occur.
I’d much rather concentrate my attention and resources on an environmental problem that clearly exists and clearly has reasonable solutions available, like the pollution of drinking water.
- Texan99 | 02/03/2013 @ 13:47Texan99: Likewise, if there are no policies under discussion that would be less destructive than even the worst predicted effects of warming (setting aside for the moment whether the evidence, such as it is, supports the wilder assertions), then there’s no reason to harangue us constantly about your theories on what causes warming and what should be done about it.
That is incorrect. Let’s say the solutions proposed until now are all impractical or more costly than the original problem. That doesn’t mean there aren’t practical solutions that ultimately address climate change in a cost-effective manner. So you’re still back to determining the extent of anthropogenic climate change in order to craft reasonable policies.
Texan99: I’d much rather concentrate my attention and resources on an environmental problem that clearly exists and clearly has reasonable solutions available, like the pollution of drinking water.
Most people would rather walk and chew bubble gum, but sometimes reality intrudes.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2013 @ 05:25GIVE me a one-handed economist,” demanded a frustrated President Truman. “All my economists say, ‘on the one hand…on the other’”.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2013 @ 06:24Whoops! Wrong thread.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2013 @ 06:34“Let’s say the solutions proposed until now are all impractical or more costly than the original problem. That doesn’t mean there aren’t practical solutions that ultimately address climate change in a cost-effective manner.”
Your use of tense makes that second sentence hard to parse. Do you mean, “That doesn’t mean that in the future someone won’t propose a practical and cost-effective solution”? I agree that could happen. If and when it happens, I will happily compare the price of the solution to the worst predictions of warming harm. If the solution costs less than the worst predictions, then I’ll put a lot of effort into sorting out which of the predictions of warming harm are most believable, so I can compare the cost against the benefit. As of today, there’s no useful comparison to be made. So while I’m waiting, I’ll keep working on environmental policies that are cost-effective now in terms of what we know now. Resources are limited. If you waste them on futile policies, you have less left for the ones we know can work.
Pushing for policies immediately when you know they aren’t cost-effective opens you to the suspicion that there’s another motive for the policies — like a general appetite for expanding centralized control of the world’s economy.
- Texan99 | 02/04/2013 @ 08:59Texan99: “That doesn’t mean that in the future someone won’t propose a practical and cost-effective solution”?
That’s right, but you can’t determine if current policy ideas are practical and cost-effective without considering the threat.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2013 @ 10:10I can compare the cost of the proposed policy against the maximum threatened effect, as I said. It fails that test.
- Texan99 | 02/04/2013 @ 12:04Texan99: I can compare the cost of the proposed policy against the maximum threatened effect, as I said. It fails that test.
Great! As understood, you are assuming the “maximum threatened effect”. We would recommend assuming the range of effects considered most *likely* by scientists. If humans take no action to limit CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 is expected to triple or quadrulple over the next century, so that would represent a warming in the neighborhood of 5-6°C (9-11°F). Are we in agreement?
- Zachriel | 02/04/2013 @ 12:19I have no idea. Are you almost ready to move to the point of monetizing the harm from whatever maximum warming you think is suggested by the models, as well as monetizing the harm from your proposed solution? Because until then, and until it’s clear that one’s greater than the other, I don’t care enough to argue with you about the exact temperature or exactly what you want to do about it, because you’re not thinking seriously yet.
- Texan99 | 02/04/2013 @ 12:44Texan99: I have no idea.
That’s odd. You just said you “can compare the cost of the proposed policy against the maximum threatened effect”.
Estimates vary, but losses due to climate change are expected to increase to 3% of world GDP by 2030. The brunt will be borne by developing nations with costs as high as 10% of GDP. There is significant uncertainty in these estimates, but most analysts agree the economic costs of unchecked climate change would be huge.
Of course, none of this is inevitable. People can change their behaviors.
- Zachriel | 02/04/2013 @ 14:50OK, now you’re talking dollars: you think warming will cost the world 3% of its economy. Let’s assume for a minute that that’s true. Do you honestly think that the prevalent anti-warming proposals will cost the economy less than that? Shoot, we could make up a loss of 3% of the world economy just by jettisoning the collectivist garbage and implementing free market principles everywhere they’re now squelched. Instead, warmists want to bankrupt us all by shutting down energy production and pouring even more of the world’s economy into the command-control pit. It makes so sense to me at all, unless there’s another motive for the command-economy measures, like a fervent belief in command economies. — That’s an economic dispute, not a scientific one.
- Texan99 | 02/04/2013 @ 20:38Texan99: OK, now you’re talking dollars: you think warming will cost the world 3% of its economy.
Dollars are not the only concern, including irreversible ecological impacts and political instability, but economic costs are certainly one place to start.
Texan99: Do you honestly think that the prevalent anti-warming proposals will cost the economy less than that?
Cost estimates are about ½% to 1% of GDP over the next decade. It isn’t necessary to immediately replace every power plant in the world, just replace them with updated technology as they reach the end of their service life.
Keep in mind, though, that the costs of inaction continue to increase as greenhouse gases accumulate: Economic losses along with mitigation costs will skyrocket, along with the irreversible ecological damage. It’s one of those situations where early intervention can have an oversized effect.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2013 @ 06:17Texan99: Instead, warmists want to bankrupt us all by shutting down energy production and pouring even more of the world’s economy into the command-control pit.
While there are certainly some who stake out an extreme position, either dismantling modern civilization or ignoring the problem entirely, most analysts understand that only a healthy market economy has the wherewithal to provide a better economic future while also protecting the environment.
This isn’t new in the West. Air and water pollution once threatened to destroy the hard won successes due to industrialization. Rivers caught fire. Children were warned to stay indoors. If the trend had continued … but it didn’t continue. Laws were passed. People changed.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2013 @ 06:22Right on schedule! I was musing to a friend last night that I was surprised you didn’t take the “how can you put a price on a single baby’s life?” approach. I congratulate you for trying to quantify the comparative economic impact, and I also agree with you that economics aren’t everything.
The problem with the “what price human life” approach is that it works both ways. Babies will die if you wreck the world economy by crashing the energy supply. Babies will die if we take 1% of GDP and spend it on a fantasy rather than on measures that we know for a fact will improve conditions, like clean water and anti-malaria programs.
But I’ll give you this: if you ever convince me that the anti-warming measures could conceivably be thought to cost no more than 1% of world GDP, I might begin to pay attention to your notion that warming will cost 3% of world GDP. We’d need to pay some attention to how in the world we could conclude costs could be capped at 1% once we open the money spigot for a lot of control freaks, but that’s always an issue in public policy, not necessarily specific to this particular dispute.
Sorry, not convinced by the idea that we have to do something expensive and unproven right now about an unproven threat because it might cost more to cure it later. By that theory, I’d demand that you send me $100,000 for a course of treatment that might prevent cancer in me ten years from now, on the ground that I’m sure it would cost $200,000 then. The more you spend, the more you save!
We don’t have any disagreement over the wisdom of changing laws when there’s a problem that can be solved by laws. The problem comes when you want to spend other people’s money right now to adopt unproven and highly dangerous measures to solve a problem that hasn’t happened yet and may never happen. You can pass laws to do that, too, but they won’t be popular. It requires a lot of credibility about forecasting the future, and warmenists have forfeited that in the last few years.
- Texan99 | 02/05/2013 @ 08:01Texan99: The problem with the “what price human life” approach is that it works both ways. Babies will die if you wreck the world economy by crashing the energy supply.
That’s why any sensible response must allow for continued development.
Texan99: Babies will die if we take 1% of GDP and spend it on a fantasy …
Which is why you have to confront not ignore climate science.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2013 @ 08:20Bjorn Lomborg states in this 17 minute TED talk that we can’t fix all problems in the world because we don’t have the money to fix them all, so we need to prioritize what we focus on. The basic principle he discusses for selecting projects is by calculating how much benefit comes out of each dollar’s worth of investment. It makes more sense to spend money where the benefit coming out is 5x, 10x or even 25x the investment cost. On the other hand, spending money to get 1/5x, 1/10x, or even 1/25x the benefits out makes very little sense financially.
Lomborg states that if everyone agreed with protocols like Kyoto, it would cost about $150 billion a year, but the result would be very minor. By 2100, the effects of man-caused warming would be delayed by six years. Or as he puts it, the farmer in Bangladesh who would have been flooded out in 2100 is flooded out instead in 2106. On the other hand, he states that $75 billion would solve all major basic problems the world faces today. The decision is whether to spend twice the amount money to provide a little good fighting climate change, as Zachriel suggests, or we could spend half the amount and provide clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, and education for everyone on Earth. “So we have to ask ourselves,” Lomborg said, “do we want to spend twice the amount and do very little good, or half the amount and do an amazing amount of good.” He suggests that the top four bang for the buck problems are HIV/AIDS prevention, treating malnutrition with micro-nutrients, global free trade (suggested by Texan99), and malaria prevention.
Well worth watching the whole thing.
- Captain Midnight | 02/05/2013 @ 12:14That’s why any sensible response must allow for continued development. I think you mean, any sensible response to global warming must allow for continued economic and/or energy development? I would agree that any sensible response to any human problem must do so, but I take it you mean you believe your favored approaches to effective global cooling and/or CO2 reduction would do so? How do you figure?
Which is why you have to confront not ignore climate science. I have never in my life ignored climate or any other kind of science. You do realize that, from my perspective, it’s you who ignore any part of the scientific inquiry and debate that doesn’t support your position? The way I see it is that the issues are quite murky. The mere fact of warming is murky in that it’s not clear whether we’re seeing noise in the signal or a robust trend. The role of man in any warming that may exist is equally murky. (Yes, I understand you’re convinced. Many are not.) Finally, the cost-effectiveness of the proposal solutions is murky. One of us is ignoring one side of the debate, labeling it (in effect) beyond the pale scientifically, but it is not I. What’s more, nothing you’ve ever written here or on any other site where I’ve encountered you leads me to believe your training in or understanding of “science” is superior to mine. Arguing with you often feels like arguing with a creationist.
- Texan99 | 02/05/2013 @ 12:34Captain Midnight: On the other hand, he states that $75 billion would solve all major basic problems the world faces today.
Um, no. Not even close.
Captain Midnight: The decision is whether to spend twice the amount money to provide a little good fighting climate change, as Zachriel suggests, or we could spend half the amount and provide clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, and education for everyone on Earth.
Good point. Climate change will not only cause loss of arable lands, especially in poor countries, but cause severe losses of available drinking water, especially in poor areas.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2013 @ 13:11Texan99: I think you mean, any sensible response to global warming must allow for continued economic and/or energy development?
Economic development, especially in developing countries, is essential.
Texan99: I would agree that any sensible response to any human problem must do so, but I take it you mean you believe your favored approaches to effective global cooling and/or CO2 reduction would do so? How do you figure?
Climate change will dampen long term growth, especially in developing countries. This is similar to the problem the West faced with air and water pollution, and China faces today. Degrade the environment, and you create barriers to future development.
Texan99: The mere fact of warming is murky in that it’s not clear whether we’re seeing noise in the signal or a robust trend.
The trend has been confirmed by surface, radiosonde and satellite observations. It’s consistent with the physics of greenhouse warming. The only question is the amount of projected warming, and scientists are narrowing the range of plausible values.
Texan99: The role of man in any warming that may exist is equally murky.
The observed warming of the surface and lower troposphere along with cooling in the stratosphere is strong evidence of greenhouse warming.
Texan99: Finally, the cost-effectiveness of the proposal solutions is murky.
It’s certainly not an intractable problem. Humans built the current infrastructure, and can update it as necessary. There are strong advantages to fossil fuels, so they will still be important in the future.
Texan99: Arguing with you often feels like arguing with a creationist.
That’s funny.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2013 @ 13:26Climate change will dampen long term growth, especially in developing countries. Assuming for the sake of argument this is true (despite considerable evidence that warming, if it occurred, would help in some areas while hurting in others), you’re skipping the part about how your favored approaches to effective global cooling and/or CO2 reduction would spur energy development instead of markedly depressing it, thereby depressing developing economies. What will the net effect be?
The trend of warming has been confirmed by, etc., etc. It’s been “confirmed” if you ignore half the science. I thought we weren’t supposed to ignore science? The word “confirm” is an odd one to use about resolving doubt over whether a recent uptick (assuming it is genuine) is a bobble or a robust trend? That is not science but opinion and interpretation of ambiguous data. It may become science in the future if we collect data on the trend over a long enough period, but we’re still in the stage of projecting the future. One does not “confirm” the future except by waiting and seeing. One gets greater or lesser insights into what it might be, which are not made more reliable by ignoring counterarguments and contradictory data.
The observed warming of the surface and lower troposphere along with cooling in the stratosphere is strong evidence of greenhouse warming. So you’ve often said, without establishing your viewpoint in a convincing way. In any case, my point was not that there is no evidence that could lead someone to conclude that future warming is more likely. My point is that you focus entirely on the evidence that supports your position and ignore the evidence that does not. It is your eyes that are blinkered, not those of the people who are reserving judgment for now.
It’s certainly not an intractable problem. Humans built the current infrastructure, and can update it as necessary. There are strong advantages to fossil fuels, so they will still be important in the future. As a response to the complaint that the cost-effectiveness of the proposed solutions is murky, that was extraordinarily murky. Frankly, the entire statement could just as well have been uttered in support of my position — it’s that generic and platitudinous. I’m not saying it’s impossible to imagine a cost-effective solution, only that no one has identified one yet.
- Texan99 | 02/05/2013 @ 13:49Captain Midnight: On the other hand, he states that $75 billion would solve all major basic problems the world faces today.
Zachriel Um, no. Not even close.
Dear Mr. Lomborg,
A guy on the internet says your numbers from your February 2005 TED talk are wrong. Please fix them at your earliest convenience.
Thanks!
–CM
Captain Midnight: The decision is whether to spend twice the amount money to provide a little good fighting climate change, as Zachriel suggests, or we could spend half the amount and provide clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, and education for everyone on Earth.
Zachriel Good point. Climate change will not only cause loss of arable lands, especially in poor countries, but cause severe losses of available drinking water, especially in poor areas.
And here comes Johnny-One-Note beating the same drum again and again. The whole point of spending money where it makes the best return is glossed over in favor of pounding the climate change drum yet again. *thump* *thump*
Since you are the master of all things climate change, I’m sure you’re very familiar with the many studies showing plants in elevated CO2 concentrations did *better* with reduced moisture. So I don’t need to mention the studies of Grant et al 1999, Li et al 2000, Lin and Wang 2002, Schultz and Fangmeier 2001, Dong-Xiu et al 2002, and Reyenga et al 2001 since they are all right there at your fingertips.
- Captain Midnight | 02/05/2013 @ 14:23Texan99: Assuming for the sake of argument this is true (despite considerable evidence that warming, if it occurred, would help in some areas while hurting in others),
Of course some areas will benefit, and some people will benefit, but the overall trend is for dry areas to become drying, wet areas to become wetter, and weather patterns to become more extreme.
http://climate.nasa.gov/effects
Texan99: you’re skipping the part about how your favored approaches to effective global cooling and/or CO2 reduction would spur energy development instead of markedly depressing it, thereby depressing developing economies. What will the net effect be?
Cost estimates are about ½% to 1% of GDP over the next decade. It will require international cooperation to help poorer countries not to become overly reliant on fossil fuels.
Texan99: The word “confirm” is an odd one to use about resolving doubt over whether a recent uptick (assuming it is genuine) is a bobble or a robust trend?
There is a definite trend. It’s been confirmed by multiple measures by multiple scientific groups. The surface has warmed.
Zachriel: The observed warming of the surface and lower troposphere along with cooling in the stratosphere is strong evidence of greenhouse warming.
Texan99: So you’ve often said, without establishing your viewpoint in a convincing way.
This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation. In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
A recent re-analysis of the raw data by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project confirms the findings with regards to surface temperatures.
http://berkeleyearth.org/study/
Texan99: My point is that you focus entirely on the evidence that supports your position and ignore the evidence that does not.
You haven’t provided any. As far as the scientific literature, there is nothing that substantially contradicts the basic findings concerning anthropogenic climate change.
Texan99: Frankly, the entire statement could just as well have been uttered in support of my position — it’s that generic and platitudinous.
From a global standpoint, the simplest solution is to simply put the costs of greenhouse gases on the users. Markets will then tend towards the best solutions. There won’t be a single solution, but a general restructuring. This process will have to be tempered with technology transfers to poorer countries.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2013 @ 15:13Captain Midnight: A guy on the internet says your numbers from your February 2005 TED talk are wrong. Please fix them at your earliest convenience.
Total gross development aid from OECD countries was $133 billion in 2011, including for AIDS/HIV, malaria, and clean water. Problem solved! Glad we don’t have to worry about that any longer.
Captain Midnight: Since you are the master of all things climate change, I’m sure you’re very familiar with the many studies showing plants in elevated CO2 concentrations did *better* with reduced moisture.
It’s a complex relationship. As has been known for a long time, increased CO2 has benefits, but it depends on the crops and the regional effects. C3 plants may benefit more than C4 plants, but faster growth in some grains reduces yields. And while partial stomatal closure may make for more efficient respiration, most crops still require fairly stable rainfall, not too much or too little, during the growing season, while excessive heat often reduces yields.
Lobell, Schlenker & Costa-Roberts, Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980, Science 2011: “Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.”
- Zachriel | 02/05/2013 @ 16:01Zachriel Total gross development aid from OECD countries was $133 billion in 2011, including for AIDS/HIV, malaria, and clean water. Problem solved! Glad we don’t have to worry about that any longer.
We all know that any aid given always goes to the people who benefit most from it, and never to line the pockets of tinpot dictators. So, yeah, the problem’s solved. That’s why we don’t have any issues now with clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, and education for everyone. Feel free to turn back to your favorite one-note anthem.
Captain Midnight: Since you are the master of all things climate change, I’m sure you’re very familiar with the many studies showing plants in elevated CO2 concentrations did *better* with reduced moisture.
Zachriel It’s a complex relationship. As has been known for a long time, increased CO2 has benefits, but it depends on the crops and the regional effects.
Sure it’s complex, but it seems the only results I hear from you are the negative ones. It’s almost as if you have some agenda or common theme you are pushing. *thump* *thump* Lomborg does admit that there are consequences to warming. He points out in a 2007 discussion at Google that warming forecasts predict that there will be 2,000 more deaths due to heat in 2050 than in 2000. But the same forecasts are predicting that there will be 20,000 fewer deaths in the UK due to cold. Seems like a net 18,000 lives saved to me, and isn’t that’s a good thing? He then projected that globally there would be about 1.4 million fewer deaths from cold by 2050 in a warmer world. Would there also be bad effects in a warmer world? Sure, but alwarmists seem to only talk about the bad aspects and practically never talk about the benefits.
And as Texan99 has pointed out, this is a discussion of weighing the cost effectiveness. Seems to come down to whether 2100 is a colder and poorer world or a warmer and richer one. Wealth, both in money and energy, means people can react to changes in the environment.
- Captain Midnight | 02/05/2013 @ 17:21Captain Midnight: We all know that any aid given always goes to the people who benefit most from it, and never to line the pockets of tinpot dictators.
Yes, the $75 billion claim only includes silver-bullets.
Captain Midnight: But the same forecasts are predicting that there will be 20,000 fewer deaths in the UK due to cold. Seems like a net 18,000 lives saved to me, and isn’t that’s a good thing?
Yes, scientists are studying all aspects of climate change, including both positive and negative effects. What did you think they were doing?
Captain Midnight: Sure, but alwarmists seem to only talk about the bad aspects and practically never talk about the benefits.
Not particularly interested in what “alarmists” talk about, but what can be shown.
Captain Midnight: Seems to come down to whether 2100 is a colder and poorer world or a warmer and richer one. Wealth, both in money and energy, means people can react to changes in the environment.
The scientific evidence indicates that the world will be poorer than otherwise if there is rapid anthropogenic global warming. Not only will climate change limit growth, but it will damage much of the world’s natural inheritance.
Captain Midnight: Wealth, both in money and energy, means people can react to changes in the environment.
We are in agreement on this point.
- Zachriel | 02/05/2013 @ 18:02If your answer to the question “What will the net effect be?” is that “Cost estimates are about ½% to 1% of GDP over the next decade. It will require international cooperation to help poorer countries not to become overly reliant on fossil fuels,” do you mean you are aware of calculations that take into account all the harm resulting from the crashing of the energy industry, and still find that the cost of climate amelioration will be only 0.5% to 1% of GDP? That would be an amazing trick. Even between states in the U.S., there is a greater discrepancy than that in local economies based on which states are squelching energy production/ Yet the difference in energy policy between states is nothing like as severe as the proposals for worldwide energy production changes.
There is a definite trend. It’s been confirmed by multiple measures by multiple scientific groups. The surface has warmed. More confusion about the difference between seeing an uptick and concluding that it portends a permanent trend. There’s no such thing as confirming that kind of conclusion. There are only sound and unsound processes for opinions about the future. That’s a lot of the problem with climate arguments in a nutshell: the tendency to confuse evidence of past temperature with models of future changes in temperature. Until the models demonstrate predictive power by being checked against real temperatures, it’s premature to treat their predictions as evidence. Climate models have had a spectacularly poor predictive record over the last 20 years. How long must we assume they’re about to get much better at it?
Your troposphere argument doesn’t get more convincing just because you repeat it. You typically bring it up to address the problem that catastrophic warming models assume that a positive feedback mechanism accentuates the otherwise minuscule impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, given water’s obvious predominance in that role. There is no experimental evidence upholding the positive feedback mechanism; in fact, the actual temperature data support a negative (stabilizing) feedback. At this point, you generally observe, almost always in exactly the same words on every single website, that tropospheric warming coupled with stratosphereic cooling is a strong indicator of greenhouse warming. That evades the issue of whether there is runaway warming (i.e., positive feedback) or merely oscillatory warming (i.e., negative feedback) that is simply part of a very long pattern of climate ups and downs. No one disputes that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or that they’ve always been there. The question is whether they’ve suddenly begun to spin out of control pursuant to an unprecedented mechanism, and on that subject, you have nothing.
em>As far as the scientific literature, there is nothing that substantially contradicts the basic findings concerning anthropogenic climate change. Really, literally nothing? There’s no contrary evidence at all that you think merits your attention? That would be nearly a first in the history of science. I’m sure I’ve never heard an actual scientist make such an absurd claim about anything more complicated than, say, ballistics. Normally they content themselves with saying that the preponderance of the evidence favors their own conclusions, and they put a lot of effort into testing their theories by examining any troubling evidence — especially in fields relying on predictions about complex and turbulent systems. But you have the luxury of a position for which there is exactly zero contrary evidence. Amazing.
From a global standpoint, the simplest solution is to simply put the costs of greenhouse gases on the users. Markets will then tend towards the best solutions. There won’t be a single solution, but a general restructuring. This process will have to be tempered with technology transfers to poorer countries. Again, as a response to the complaint that the cost-effectiveness of the proposed solutions is murky, this has a canned feel. It totally fails to address cost-effectiveness. Putting the costs of greenhouse gases on users will achieve justice in the mind of someone who believes that greenhouse gases cause harm, but it tells us nothing about whether the cost of squelching energy production and economic growth will exceed any benefits from cooling the climate. In other words, it addresses who will bear the costs rather than how large they will be.
“Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, carbon dioxide fertilization, and other factors.” Or, to put it another way, the economic benefits of declining to worry about increased CO2 were greater than the cost of warming even in countries where cost of warming was found to be “significant.” And you think this supports your view that the proposed countermeasures are cost-effective?
Yes, scientists are studying all aspects of climate change, including both positive and negative effects. What did you think they were doing? What’s your point? If they’re discovering that warming helps as well as hurts, where does that leave you on the question of cost-effectiveness?
- Texan99 | 02/05/2013 @ 22:11Texan99: It will require international cooperation to help poorer countries not to become overly reliant on fossil fuels,” do you mean you are aware of calculations that take into account all the harm resulting from the crashing of the energy industry, and still find that the cost of climate amelioration will be only 0.5% to 1% of GDP?
Why would you ever want to crash the energy industry? That makes no sense.
Once upon a time, conservatives in industry claimed that dumping pollutants in the air and water was the only way it could be done, that stopping that process would cause the American economy to come to a halt. Yet, today, Americans would consider it outrageous that anyone would dump their waste freely into the air and water; and today, American manufacturing is twice what it was when pollution controls were introduced.
Texan99: More confusion about the difference between seeing an uptick and concluding that it portends a permanent trend.
Not confused at all. Your statement was ambiguous. There is a decades long trend of an increasing greenhouse effect. What is causing this increased greenhouse effect?
Texan99: MoreClimate models have had a spectacularly poor predictive record over the last 20 years.
The models are largely correct once adjusted for ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations. See,
Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg
Texan99: You typically bring it up to address the problem that catastrophic warming models assume that a positive feedback mechanism accentuates the otherwise minuscule impact of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, given water’s obvious predominance in that role.
Noting the increased greenhouse effect doesn’t require a positive feedback mechanism. In any case, increased surface warming will result in more atmospheric water vapor.
Texan99: There is no experimental evidence upholding the positive feedback mechanism; in fact, the actual temperature data support a negative (stabilizing) feedback.
There are a large number of studies, using a wide variety of different methodologies, that support a significant positive feedback. Here’s a review paper: Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
Texan99: At this point, you generally observe, almost always in exactly the same words on every single website, that tropospheric warming coupled with stratosphereic cooling is a strong indicator of greenhouse warming.
Yes. We repeat it because many either deny this evidence or ignore it.
Texan99: That evades the issue of whether there is runaway warming (i.e., positive feedback) or merely oscillatory warming (i.e., negative feedback) that is simply part of a very long pattern of climate ups and downs.
Few expect runaway warming. Nor does saying “a very long pattern of climate ups and downs” explain the greenhouse effect. Cyclical warming might be due to changes in solar irradiance, but that wouldn’t explain the greenhouse effect (nor does evidence of solar irradiance support the current warming trend). There might be changes in the distribution of heat in the oceans, but that wouldn’t explain the greenhouse effect (nor does evidence of ocean heat support the current warming trend). Simply waving your hands and saying “cycles” doesn’t explain anything. While the climate is very complex, it is essentially a heat engine. Energy is conserved.
Texan99: No one disputes that there are greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or that they’ve always been there.
Actually, it’s not uncommon on skeptical websites. In any case, we’re not talking about whether the greenhouse effect exists, but the long-term trend of *increasing* greenhouse effect.
Texan99: Really, literally nothing?
Nothing that *substantially* contradicts the basic findings concerning anthropogenic climate change, as we said.
Texan99: Amazing.
Yes, amazing that you exuberantly waved your hands, but forgot to point to anything in the scientific literature.
Texan99: gain, as a response to the complaint that the cost-effectiveness of the proposed solutions is murky, this has a canned feel. It totally fails to address cost-effectiveness.
There’s been a lot of work on the subject. Because of the complexity, the findings are usually spread over a multitude of papers, so you may have to dig a bit.
Stern Review
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6098362.stm
Garnaut Review
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/
‘Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet’.
http://www.scidev.net/en/climate-change-and-energy/adaptation/news/climate-change-mitigation-far-cheaper-than-inaction-.html
Mitigation: reducing emissions and stabilizing the climate
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/climate-change/mitigation.shtml
Rogel et al., Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation, Nature 2013.
- Zachriel | 02/06/2013 @ 06:34“Why would you ever want to crash the energy industry? That makes no sense.” Indeed. That would be why I’m not proposing to do anything of the sort. What I’m trying to explore is how much it will cost if we implement anti-warming policies that will do exactly that — as in our President’s promise to destroy the coal industry and the EPA’s labeling of CO2 as a toxin. It’s one thing to look for cleaner ways to achieve combustion, and another to demonize all combustion because even the cleanest and most idealized combustion has CO2 as a by-product by definition. Yes, it would be lovely if we had an adequate and practical energy source that didn’t rely on combustion. As soon as we have one, fossil fuels no doubt will fall out of use for the same reason whale oil did. Until then, it’s lunacy to shut down combustion, unless you’re prepared to crash the energy industry and plunge much of the world into penury.
“There is a decades long trend of an increasing greenhouse effect.” That turns out not to be the case. There may have been a decades-long trend of increased temperatures, now terminated, nestled in a much longer trend of increased and decreased temperatures whose general trend is either upward or downward depending on the time scale you choose to examine. Whether the greenhouse effect itself is (or has recently been) increasing is not at all clear. Even if it showed a temporary increase, it remains unclear whether it was an uptick nestled in a pattern of up- and down-ticks viewed over a longer scale. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not at historical highs on a geological scale, nor even close. In the past, CO2 has fluctuated. It never spun out of control, apparently because, as I noted above, the climate contains a negative feedback mechanism that leads to an equilibrium, rather than a positive feedback mechanism that leads to spinning out of control. All warmist climate models depend on a theory of positive feedback mechanisms for which there is neither theoretical nor experimental support. It exists only in partisan models, untethered from any convincing non-psychological explanation.
The models are largely correct once adjusted for . . . [etc.] Yes, models can always be adjusted retroactively by various fudge factors after the fact. As soon as someone comes up with a model that produces accurate predictions without post-failure backfilling with previously neglected relevant factors, we’ll have gotten somewhere. Modeling often is a process of iteration while we explore the factors that should be considered most relevant according to our understanding of the underlying causation mechanism. When you’re in the middle of this process and haven’t yet produced a successful model, it’s too soon to leap to conclusions about effective remediation — especially ruinously expense remediation with awful side effects.
There are a large number of studies, using a wide variety of different methodologies, that support a significant positive feedback. This is perhaps the weakest point in the entire warmist edifice. I cannot even imagine how anyone could considered it a settled point. The mere fact that observed temperatures track predictions from negative-feedback models better than positive-feedback models should give us all pause even if we were totally convinced by the iffy physics of the positive-feedback position. Something’s obviously wrong with this huge and critical assumption.
We repeat it because many either deny this evidence or ignore it. But you understand, I hope, that many people will continue to ignore an essentially irrelevant statement, no matter how often repeated, unless you explain convincingly how it supports your overall argument?
Few expect runaway warming. That is exactly the catastrophic warming thesis. Without it there are simply periodic ups and downs.
Nor does saying “a very long pattern of climate ups and downs” explain the greenhouse effect. Nor was it intended to. Instead, a greenhouse effect with an embedded negative feedback mechanism, along with other natural periodic fluctuations, explains the ups and downs at least as well as a theory that relies heavily on human intervention.
Cyclical warming might be due to changes in solar irradiance, but that wouldn’t explain the greenhouse effect (nor does evidence of solar irradiance support the current warming trend). No one is trying to explain the greenhouse effect with reference to solar variability and its resultant cycles. They are separate mechanisms that involve some of the same sub-factors.
There might be changes in the distribution of heat in the oceans, but that wouldn’t explain the greenhouse effect (nor does evidence of ocean heat support the current warming trend). Ditto, see above.
Simply waving your hands and saying “cycles” doesn’t explain anything. While the climate is very complex, it is essentially a heat engine. Energy is conserved. Are you trying to say that, if we’re warming, it’s because we’ve violated the principle of conservation of energy by introducing a new source to the system?
we’re not talking about whether the greenhouse effect exists, but the long-term trend of *increasing* greenhouse effect. Exactly, which is why I’m not persuaded by any part of your argument that dwells on the mere existence of the non-controversial greenhouse effect and neglects an explanation of why you insist it is increasing, in the absence of either theoretical or evidentiary support that you can articulate concisely.
Nothing that *substantially* contradicts the basic findings concerning anthropogenic climate change. . . . My charge is that you are the one ignoring science. You wave away the evidence that contradicts your theory by claiming that it doesn’t “substantially” contradict your theory. Maybe so, maybe not, but in your arguments and elsewhere on the Net, you fail to grapple with the contradictory evidence, treating it as either non-existent or beneath your notice. That’s what I mean when I say that one of us is attending to both sides of the dispute (not you), and the other is ignoring the inconvenient part (not me). Which is anti-science?
you may have to dig a bit. If your position were tenable, you could address it concisely in English, at least hitting the high points, rather than retreat into a thicket of links. I never follow links from people who can’t explain briefly what he believes can be demonstrated by them. It’s like receiving a brief in which someone begins, “I don’t know what this document is trying to prove, exactly, but if you read 100 pages of it you’ll find a point buried there.” What do you think those links show that could lead anyone to believe that the cure won’t be worse than the disease? So far you’ve quoted only one particular, and it was an admission that the disease would bear a price tag that is a “significant fraction” of the cost of the cure. In other words, the cure costs more than the disease, though perhaps not as much more as someone might have feared.
- Texan99 | 02/07/2013 @ 11:18Texan99: That would be why I’m not proposing to do anything of the sort.
Good. Then we are in agreement.
Texan99: EPA’s labeling of CO2 as a toxin.
Pollutant.
Texan99: It’s one thing to look for cleaner ways to achieve combustion, and another to demonize all combustion because even the cleanest and most idealized combustion has CO2 as a by-product by definition
Fossil fuels will be important for quite some time to come.
Texan99: Until then, it’s lunacy to shut down combustion, unless you’re prepared to crash the energy industry and plunge much of the world into penury.
Good. We’re in agreement.
Zachriel: There is a decades long trend of an increasing greenhouse effect.
Texan99: That turns out not to be the case.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Now you know why we repeat ourselves.
Texan99: Whether the greenhouse effect itself is (or has recently been) increasing is not at all clear.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Now you know why we repeat ourselves.
Texan99: Even if it showed a temporary increase, it remains unclear whether it was an uptick nestled in a pattern of up- and down-ticks viewed over a longer scale.
Simply saying “pattern of up- and down-ticks” is not a valid scientific argument. The greenhouse effect is a specific physical phenomenon. Energy is conserved.
Texan99: It never spun out of control, apparently because, as I noted above, the climate contains a negative feedback mechanism that leads to an equilibrium, rather than a positive feedback mechanism that leads to spinning out of control.
“Spun out of control”. The Earth’s climate has gone from no ice caps to nearly all ice caps, so your point is rather unclear here.
Texan99: All warmist climate models depend on a theory of positive feedback mechanisms for which there is neither theoretical nor experimental support.
You keep saying that, and we keep pointing to independent empirical tests.
Texan99: Yes, models can always be adjusted retroactively by various fudge factors after the fact.
Not an argument. In any case, we weren’t talking about adjusting the models, but analyzing the data by removing trends for known fluctuations, ENSO, volcanoes, and solar irradiance, in order to provide a better fit to the underlying trend.
Texan99: The mere fact that observed temperatures track predictions from negative-feedback models better than positive-feedback models should give us all pause even if we were totally convinced by the iffy physics of the positive-feedback position.
We keep pointing to studies, and you keep saying “Is not!”
Zachriel: Few expect runaway warming.
Texan99: That is exactly the catastrophic warming thesis. Without it there are simply periodic ups and downs.
As few climate scientists expect “runaway” warming, you are attacking a strawman. It seems you don’t even under the basic findings. It’s not “runaway”, but forcing. Remove the forcing and the system will stabilize. (There is a possibility of a tipping point, whereby the system moves into a higher-energy point of equilibrium, but this is still not runaway warming.)
Texan99: Nor was it intended to. Instead, a greenhouse effect with an embedded negative feedback mechanism, along with other natural periodic fluctuations, explains the ups and downs at least as well as a theory that relies heavily on human intervention.
Saying “periodic fluctuations” doesn’t explain the increasing greenhouse effect.
Texan99: Are you trying to say that, if we’re warming, it’s because we’ve violated the principle of conservation of energy by introducing a new source to the system?
That’s silly. It’s due to the increasing greenhouse effect.
Texan99: Exactly, which is why I’m not persuaded by any part of your argument that dwells on the mere existence of the non-controversial greenhouse effect and neglects an explanation of why you insist it is increasing, in the absence of either theoretical or evidentiary support that you can articulate concisely.
Evidentiary support
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Texan99: My charge is that you are the one ignoring science. You wave away the evidence that contradicts your theory by claiming that it doesn’t “substantially” contradict your theory.
You haven’t provided any evidence. You simply say it’s “cycles” and leave it at that.
Texan99: If your position were tenable, you could address it concisely in English, at least hitting the high points, rather than retreat into a thicket of links.
We’ve repeatedly provided overviews. We’ve linked to overviews from experts in the field.
Climate change will drive many species to extinction, inundate and salinize arable lands, increase rates of desertification, increase the intensity of weather events, change the distribution of rain, possibly interrupt important weather cycles such as the monsoons, agriculture disrupted so that people may have to migrate, increasing social and political tensions. To provide more quantitative answers may require looking at the details.
- Zachriel | 02/07/2013 @ 13:32Texan99,
Look at this chart again:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Notice the surface and lower atmosphere are warming while the stratosphere is cooling. Forget that this very phenomenon was predicted a century ago (Arrhenius 1896). What physical mechanism can you provide to explain this data?
- Zachriel | 02/07/2013 @ 14:52Wow, now that is fascinating.
Texan is saying entirely different things compared to what I was saying. And yet you’re getting ready to climb on exactly the same merry-go-round with her, that you did with me. Exactly the same one. Word for word.
It’s like you can only argue one tiny part out of the vast spectrum of questions that would have to be settled, to even begin to make the anti-global-warming measures proposed look like good ideas. Reminds me of the guy who dropped his pocketwatch in the South ditch but wants to look for it in the North ditch, because that’s where the good lighting is.
- mkfreeberg | 02/07/2013 @ 15:42What physical mechanism can you provide to explain this data? I’m guessing — greenhouse warming? And your point, if any, would be? We’ve already established that I don’t doubt the existence of greenhouse warming. Did Arrhenius predict in 1896 that man-made CO2 would contribute an unprecedented positive-feedback mechanism to greenhouse warming that would prevent the system from exhibiting the same up-and-down movement it’s exhibited since time immemorial? If so, he was unusually prescient about both the industrial age and fads that would gain popularity in the last decade of the 20th century.
- Texan99 | 02/07/2013 @ 17:03“Now you know why we repeat ourselves. I assume you did it because you didn’t have anything to add, when asked to explain yourself better.
“We’ve repeatedly provided overviews.” Not to me, you haven’t, not on the subject of why you think the cure won’t cost more than the disease.
“To provide more quantitative answers may require looking at the details.” Maybe it would be a good idea to look at the details, then, before you wreck the world’s economy and starve a lot of people to death unnecessarily. Unless it’s too much trouble.
- Texan99 | 02/07/2013 @ 17:10mkfreeberg: Texan is saying entirely different things compared to what I was saying.
Well, you’re both avoiding the basic science, though at times, Texan99 has accepted it argumento, but then retreated back into denying it.
Texan99: Did Arrhenius predict in 1896 that man-made CO2 would contribute an unprecedented positive-feedback mechanism to greenhouse warming
Leaving aside the straw, Arrhenius predicted that geometric increases in CO2 would cause arithmetic increases in surface temperatures, with a doubling of CO2 causing an increase of several degrees due to amplification by water vapor, with less warming in the tropics, more in the arctic. It’s a fascinating and well-thought out paper. He did not predicate this on human activities, as he didn’t know humans would be emitting such large quantities of greenhouse gases, but the math is the same.
Arrhenius, On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground, London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.
Arrhenius won the Nobel Prize in 1903 for his work on electrolytic theory of dissociation.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1903/
Texan99: I’m guessing — greenhouse warming?
Good. Heat is being held closer to the surface. Stratospheric cooling is contrary to what would happen if surface warming were due to solar radiance or long-term cycling of oceanic energy, for instance.
So we agree that the Earth’s surface is warming due to the greenhouse effect. Now what is the cause of this increased greenhouse effect?
- Zachriel | 02/07/2013 @ 17:26Texan99: Not to me, you haven’t, not on the subject of why you think the cure won’t cost more than the disease… Maybe it would be a good idea to look at the details, then, before you wreck the world’s economy and starve a lot of people to death unnecessarily.
We’re provided an overview of the impacts from climate change, a review of the estimated costs of those impacts and estimated costs of mitigation. We’ve provided citations with those overviews, and we’ve provided citations to the details.
http://climate.nasa.gov
- Zachriel | 02/07/2013 @ 17:37Unluckily for Arhhenius, when we actually measured the temperature increase, it didn’t conform to his prediction, so he joins a long list of people who tried to model the climate only to find he didn’t completely understand the relevant mechanisms. But it’s nice that he got a Nobel Prize for something else.
I’m not sure what the problem in communication is. I agree that greenhouse warming is a demonstrable physical process. I do not agree that anyone has established that it is accelerating irrevocably; instead, the evidence of long-term temperatures is that it is subject to a negative feedback mechanism that tends to result in an oscillation. I think there is general agreement that CO2 alone is too trivial a greenhouse gas in relation to water vapor to cause an unrestrained acceleration or catastrophic future temperature increases all on its own. The theory has been proposed that CO2 somehow exerts an effect on water vapor that results in a positive feedback loop and therefore a robust acceleration rather than the usual oscillation. It is the latter proposition that is doubtful. I’m not sure why you continue to conflate “greenhouse warming” (an uncontroversial position) with “positive-feedback loop permanent acceleration of green house warming” (a controversial position), but the fact that you don’t seem able to distinguish between them makes me doubt everything else you say.
Look at your last sentence: you say we agree that the greenhouse effect causes warming, then you move immediately to calling it “this increased greenhouse effect.” In the first place, there has been a greenhouse effect since we acquired an atmosphere, but the Earth has not always been warming; sometimes other factors overwhelm it, so we oscillate. The most recent warming trend, if it was genuine at all and not an artifact of iffy sampling, apparently stopped about ten years ago.
In the second place, there is a world of difference between “greenhouse effect” and “increased greenhouse effect.” I have no reason to believe that the greenhouse effect today is significantly different from the greenhouse effect of long ago. The increase in CO2 appears to be trivial in relation to the impact of other, stronger greenhouse gases.
I’m not convinced you know what “basic science” is. I’m less convinced the more of your comments I read.
- Texan99 | 02/07/2013 @ 17:49Provide a quotation from one of your links that supports a quantification of the cure that’s less than a quantification of the cost of the disease, and I promise to read the entire link.
- Texan99 | 02/07/2013 @ 17:52Texan99: Unluckily for Arhhenius, when we actually measured the temperature increase, it didn’t conform to his prediction,
His calculation of climate sensitivity was a bit too high, but his calculation is much closer than mere handwaving. Halley’s prediction of the comet was a bit off too.
Texan99: I agree that greenhouse warming is a demonstrable physical process.
Not only is it a physical process, but the greenhouse effect has increased over the last half century.
Texan99: I do not agree that anyone has established that it is accelerating irrevocably; instead, the evidence of long-term temperatures is that it is subject to a negative feedback mechanism that tends to result in an oscillation.
Pointing to “oscillation” doesn’t explain the increasing greenhouse effect. We’ve pointed this out numerous times.
Texan99: I think there is general agreement that CO2 alone is too trivial a greenhouse gas in relation to water vapor to cause an unrestrained acceleration or catastrophic future temperature increases all on its own.
It’s hardly trivial, but not dangerous in-and-of-itself. Doubling CO2 would lead to an increase of about 1°C.
Texan99: The theory has been proposed that CO2 somehow exerts an effect on water vapor that results in a positive feedback loop and therefore a robust acceleration rather than the usual oscillation.
CO2 causes the surface to warm. Increased warming leads to increased evaporation. It’s not an acceleration, but an amplification.
Texan99: It is the latter proposition that is doubtful.
Again, all you do is say “Is not!” Provide some data or an argument or something.
While there is some uncertainty concerning climate sensitivity, the science strongly implies a sensitivity of at least 2°C and probably closer to 3°C. It’s key to understand that scientists don’t rely on a single paper or method of determining climate sensitivity, but have approached the problem using many different techniques across multiple fields of study. Here’s a smattering on the subject:
Volcanic forcing
Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.
Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.
Paleoclimatic constraints
Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.
Bayesian probability
Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.
Review paper
Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
Texan99: I’m not sure why you continue to conflate “greenhouse warming” (an uncontroversial position) with “positive-feedback loop permanent acceleration of green house warming” (a controversial position), but the fact that you don’t seem able to distinguish between them makes me doubt everything else you say.
Clearly we don’t conflate the issues.
Texan99: In the second place, there is a world of difference between “greenhouse effect” and “increased greenhouse effect.”
Quite so, and the evidence we keep posting shows an increasing greenhouse effect. Do you understand why?
Texan99: I have no reason to believe that the greenhouse effect today is significantly different from the greenhouse effect of long ago.
Sure you do. The greenhouse effect has increased over the last half century.
- Zachriel | 02/07/2013 @ 18:14http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Texan99: Provide a quotation from one of your links that supports a quantification of the cure that’s less than a quantification of the cost of the disease, and I promise to read the entire link.
You’re probably not going to find a comprehensive answer in a single paper or study. The problem is vast. It involves determining the range of likely warming, the global and regional effects of climate change, and various mitigation scenarios. However, you could start with this report. You can download the executive summary, the full report, or the underlying data.
Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet: “adapting to climate change is very likely a cost-effective investment in almost all cases and should be central to any climate change policy”
- Zachriel | 02/07/2013 @ 18:29http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/
You say “the greenhouse effect has increased over the last half century.” That is the point that needs explaining. What makes you say that? I’m aware of evidence that the temperature increased during much of the second half of the 20th century, and then stopped. What is the basis for your statement that there was an increase in the mechanism that was causing the temperature to increase? If the greenhouse mechanism was increasing in strength, why did the temperature increase reverse itself? I see an oscillation, and I can’t understand why you see an increasing causative factor.
“CO2 causes the surface to warm. Increased warming leads to increased evaporation. It’s not an acceleration, but an amplification.” This is the point that lacks confirmation from observation. The models include the assumption that an increase in the CO2, which itself would contribute only a tiny fraction of total greenhouse warming, causes an increase in water evaporation, which increases the water vapor, which is a more powerful greenhouse gas. But the observed temperature changes don’t support this assumption. It’s only an interesting theory of a potential mechanism. It’s failing the test of experimental confirmation. The observed temperatures mostly closely match models that assume CO2 will contribute in the way that it was traditionally assumed to contribute to greenhouse warming, which was minimally, rather than in an amplified way by triggering an increase in water vapor.
You are not posting evidence that the observed temperature increases during the 20th century showed an increase in the strength of the greenhouse effect. I don’t understand why you keep claiming that you have. You only continue repeating the conclusion that the greenhouse effect is “increasing.” If increased CO2 led to increased water vapor in a positive feedback loop, why did the warming reverse itself ten years ago? Why would the loop start and stop like that? Negative feedback loops produce that kind of effect. Positive feedback loops do not. Where are any observed temperature data that support the positive feedback loop?
There’s no use continuing to spray links all over the page. Can’t you quote effectively from them if you think they’re relevant to a specific point? I don’t expect to find a comprehensive answer is a single paper or study. I do expect each paper or study that you find relevant to contain support for a particular statement whose relevance you can explain succinctly. And not something predicted in a model, either, but something based on observation and testable explanations of mechanisms.
- Texan99 | 02/07/2013 @ 19:16Texan99: You say “the greenhouse effect has increased over the last half century.” That is the point that needs explaining.
Thanks for asking. How long has it been? In any case, without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. The other result is that the stratosphere is cooler than it would be otherwise. If the greenhouse effect increases, then the surface and lower atmosphere will warm, while the upper atmosphere will cool.
What the evidence shows is a gradual warming of the surface and lower atmosphere and a cooling of the upper atmosphere.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
This is considered a signature of an increasing greenhouse effect. What else would you propose as the cause?
Texan99: I’m aware of evidence that the temperature increased during much of the second half of the 20th century, and then stopped.
Not quite.
Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg
Much of the excess heat is being absorbed by the oceans. See Nuccitelli et al, Comment on Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance II. Relation to climate shifts, 2012.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg
Texan99: But the observed temperature changes don’t support this assumption.
You keep repeating that, we point to scientific research, then you repeat it again.
Texan99: If increased CO2 led to increased water vapor in a positive feedback loop, why did the warming reverse itself ten years ago? Why would the loop start and stop like that? Negative feedback loops produce that kind of effect. Positive feedback loops do not.
There are both positive and negative feedbacks in climate resulting in a complex system. That’s very basic.
Texan99: Where are any observed temperature data that support the positive feedback loop?
We’ve pointed to multiple studies concerning climate sensitivity. Try the review paper, Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008. Here’s the abstract:
Please note that the lower limit is well-constrained, meaning there is amplification.
- Zachriel | 02/08/2013 @ 05:11Time only for this note before I disappear into a fundraiser for two days. Didn’t want you to think I was neglecting you.
We don’t have to guess about what kind of feedback loop has been in operation during the industrial age, for the last 125 years or so. We don’t have to model it and then hope we’re predicting it correctly despite our imperfect understanding of a complex system. We have solid data showing us what the maximum sensitivity can have been over the last 125 years. We estimate that CO2 was about 280ppm in the pre-industrial period. We know that CO2 is about 385ppm today. We know how to calculate the impact of a doubling in CO2 on temperatures depending on the “sensitivity”; i.e., whether the feedback is negative (a factor of less than 1.0, tending to damp out the effect of the CO2), neutral (1.0), or positive (more than 1.0, tending to amplify the effect of the CO2). Positive feedback loops in natural processes that have been around for a long time are rare, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that man-made CO2 is so new and extraordinary (even though CO2 levels were higher in past geological eras) that we’re seeing a startling new mechanism never before experienced by the Earth. So we’ll consider the possibility that there is a large positive feedback mechanism that would amplify the fairly modest temperature increase you might otherwise expect simply from doubling atmospheric CO2 over the next century or so.
A fairly conservative interpretation of the long-term temperature increase from the dawn of the industrial era through today is about 0.6 degrees C. It’s not at all certain that all of this increase results from industrial activity, of course; much of it could have come from natural cycles. We know, for instance, that solar irradiation has increased during that same period. It’s also not clear that the temperature measurements are not skewed by a variety of sampling errors caused by heat-island bias and other more or less deliberate machinations of politically-minded scientists. But for the sake of argument let’s say the increase really is 0.6 degrees C and that it all came from manmade activity. That level of temperature increase would correspond to a sensitivity just shy of 1.4, which is a modest positive feedback. Feedback on that scale would give us an increase of only another 1.3 or 1.4 degrees C by the time CO2 levels more than double their current level, to around 800ppm.
The climate models that predict a much higher temperature increase all depend on the assumption that the correct feedback/sensitivity number to plug into the prediction is 2.5 or even 3.0 — but the historical observed temperature data since the beginning of the industrial era flatly contradict such an assumption. The assumption depends entirely on a bare-nekkid theory: it has no empirical support to date. This critical assumption about the scale of the positive feedback mechanism is about as far as you can get from “settled science.” It is speculative in the extreme. Provocative, interesting, worth studying, but too speculative to base world energy policy on. (How much will it cost to invade China and put your policies into effect?)
The new draft IPCC report reflects this very much moderated view of the scale of the sensitivity factor, and therefore has backed off of the frantic old predictions of 3.0 sensitivities and several degrees C of warming. A milder warming in the 1.0-1.5 degree C range will be manageable without turning the world economy on its head. It may even be beneficial on balance. It’s not a code blue. The patient is stable.
Government-funded scientist Steven Schneider (National Center for Atmospheric Research) wrote: “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” Edenhofer admitted (even boasted) that the climate movement was about the redistribution of wealth rather than ecology. There is every reason to take a deep breath and re-evaluate this stuff more dispassionately.
- Texan99 | 02/08/2013 @ 07:32Texan99: A fairly conservative interpretation of the long-term temperature increase from the dawn of the industrial era through today is about 0.6 degrees C.
0.8°C
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php
Texan99: We estimate that CO2 was about 280ppm in the pre-industrial period. We know that CO2 is about 385ppm today. <
Based on that, amplification is 74%. Of course, there are many other variables, including short term negative feedbacks that may mean actual climate sensitivity is higher. Wonder if there is any way we might test climate sensitivity without regard to any underlying theory of anthropogenic climate change? Maybe we could observe what happens when a volcano spews huge amounts of gases into the atmosphere, a natural experiment. Or maybe we could measure the Earth's energy budget. Or perhaps look at the history of Earth's natural climate change to set some limits.
Texan99: We know, for instance, that solar irradiation has increased during that same period.
Historically, solar irradiance is an important climate forcing. However, they have become decoupled over the last few decades.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif
Texan99: It’s also not clear that the temperature measurements are not skewed by a variety of sampling errors caused by heat-island bias and other more or less deliberate machinations of politically-minded scientists.
The data has been subject to intense scrutiny, yet the overall trends have been supported, most recently by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project.
http://berkeleyearth.org/study/
Texan99: The climate models that predict a much higher temperature increase all depend on the assumption that the correct feedback/sensitivity number to plug into the prediction is 2.5 or even 3.0
We have pointed to empirical tests of climate sensitivity.
- Zachriel | 02/08/2013 @ 10:32Not sure ad hominem is an effective argument, but it is especially weak when it misses the mark concerning a highly respected and published scientist.
Texan99: Government-funded scientist Steven Schneider
It was easy to guess he was quoted out of context. Just before that statement he said,
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.”
And right after that statement he said,
“I hope that means being both {effective and honest}.”
http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/upload/aug96.pdf
- Zachriel | 02/08/2013 @ 10:40It was easy to guess you’d claim he was taken out of context. “On the one hand, we should be honest. But still, we have to strike a balance between being effective and being honest. On the other hand, I hope we can be both.” Yes, that inspires me with enormous confidence in his integrity, as well as in the integrity of anyone who can’t understand what’s wrong with what he said, in or out of context. Because it’s important to be honest if you can, but sometimes you can’t, and that’s OK if your cause is important enough, right? But we’ll hope for the best while not firmly intending to place honesty above any concern we may have about the success of our essentially political, not scientific, cause.
And you wonder why you guys have a problem with your credibility. I mean, why wouldn’t anyone give you trillions of dollars to play with? Your hearts are in the right place.
- Texan99 | 02/08/2013 @ 11:23Texan99: It was easy to guess you’d claim he was taken out of context.
We didn’t just claimed it, but supported it. Schneider clearly didn’t advocate what the quote-mine implied. That’s why the context was left out.
Our substantive comment is still in the moderation queue.
- Zachriel | 02/08/2013 @ 11:50What you’re describing is not real science. In science, “data” and “findings” are not synonyms; you use the data to make the findings, and you do this while being open to any conclusion possible.
This faux-science comes up with theories about what the warming will be later on with the infusion of additional CO2 in the atmosphere; the subsequent history shows it to be wrong, so then a new study is started in Berkeley to revise the climate sensitivity downward a notch, to reconcile the mistaken theories with the new historical evidence and continue to predict a disaster.
The entirely legitimate possibility that there is no such disaster waiting for us, is eliminated. This is where deductive reasoning fails. To make it work, you have to include all possibilities exhaustively, and only eliminate the ones that have been logically shown to have failed.
- mkfreeberg | 02/08/2013 @ 12:51mkfreeberg: What you’re describing is not real science. In science, “data” and “findings” are not synonyms;
That’s right.
mkfreeberg: you use the data to make the findings, and you do this while being open to any conclusion possible.
In the scientific method, you propose hypotheses, which you then test. But being open to new ideas is important. So, we’ll keep an open mind. How do you explain the warming surface while the upper atmosphere is cooling?
mkfreeberg: This faux-science comes up with theories about what the warming will be later on with the infusion of additional CO2 in the atmosphere;
The basics of the greenhouse effect, including amplification, were worked out a century ago. Not sure how they fit into your conspiracy theory.
mkfreeberg: the subsequent history shows it to be wrong, so then a new study is started in Berkeley to revise the climate sensitivity downward a notch,
To which new study in Berkeley are you referring?
- Zachriel | 02/08/2013 @ 13:13The basics of the greenhouse effect, including amplification, were worked out a century ago. Not sure how they fit into your conspiracy theory.
I didn’t bring them up. You’re the one who keeps going back to that, so you tell me.
- mkfreeberg | 02/08/2013 @ 13:22Zachriel: The basics of the greenhouse effect, including amplification, were worked out a century ago. Not sure how they fit into your conspiracy theory.
mkfreeberg: I didn’t bring them up. You’re the one who keeps going back to that, so you tell me.
It would seem to undercut the theory that the scientific question about amplification is some sort of conspiracy by modern climatologists.
To which new study in Berkeley were you referring? The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project?
- Zachriel | 02/08/2013 @ 13:29It would seem to undercut the theory that the scientific question about amplification is some sort of conspiracy by modern climatologists.
Amplification is some sort of conspiracy…hmmm…what theory is that, exactly?
To which new study in Berkeley were you referring? The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project?
I believe so. One of the ones you were pointing us to over in the other mega-thread that went in circles.
- mkfreeberg | 02/08/2013 @ 13:34mkfreeberg: Amplification is some sort of conspiracy…hmmm…what theory is that, exactly?
No, it’s not. It was predicted a century ago, and is the subject of direct scientific study today.
mkfreeberg: the subsequent history shows it to be wrong, so then a new study is started in Berkeley to revise the climate sensitivity downward a notch
The Berkeley team did not study climate sensitivity. They analyzed global raw surface temperature data, and using independent methods, determined whether there was a discernible trend. They confirmed other researchers’ results: The Earth’s surface is warming, and this warming is strongly correlated to atmospheric CO2.
mkfreeberg: One of the ones you were pointing us to over in the other mega-thread that went in circles.
And yet, you never read it.
- Zachriel | 02/08/2013 @ 13:42And yet, you never read it.
Nice dodge. But the point stands, if entirely possible outcomes are being ruled out before they’ve been logically excluded, then it isn’t real science. It isn’t even quality deductive reasoning.
It only works if you take all the possibilities into account. And the possibility of the warming tapering off, and us surviving just fine with the warming that does take place — these are distinct possibilities. In fact, they’re probabilities. In fact, as has been pointed out, there is research indicating this has occurred.
- mkfreeberg | 02/08/2013 @ 13:47mkfreeberg: Nice dodge.
It’s not a dodge. It shows you haven’t even bothered to look at the evidence, even though you admit you’ve been presented it many times.
mkfreeberg: And the possibility of the warming tapering off,
Sure, it’s possible, but not plausible given the evidence (which you haven’t bothered to look at).
mkfreeberg: and us surviving just fine with the warming that does take place — these are distinct possibilities.
Don’t worry. Humans will adapt. But part of that adaptation will be to quit messing their nest.
- Zachriel | 02/08/2013 @ 14:30It’s not a dodge. It shows you haven’t even bothered to look at the evidence, even though you admit you’ve been presented it many times.
Waitaminnit. You’ve made an issue, repeatedly, over whether other people participating in the conversation have a good understanding of the science — entirely without justification, since those participating have certainly demonstrated they know what they’re talking about.
It must therefore be a worthy question to ask, whether these research artifacts you want us to read, really do represent genuine science before we take the time to read them. Sauce for the goose.
And from all I’ve seen, as I’ve mentioned above, it isn’t something that could truly and accurately be called “science.” It looks more and more like a ritual — a political ritual — of declaring some persons qualified to have influence, and other persons not to. Based not on their understanding or on their credentials, but on their willingness to believe.
- mkfreeberg | 02/08/2013 @ 15:12mkfreeberg: It must therefore be a worthy question to ask, whether these research artifacts you want us to read, really do represent genuine science before we take the time to read them.
So scientists proposing and testing hypotheses by collecting data, then publishing their findings in scientific peer-reviewed journals, then other scientists investigating those findings through independent means, then publishing those findings in journals, is not science? How did you think science was done?
mkfreeberg: And from all I’ve seen
You didn’t look, remember?
- Zachriel | 02/08/2013 @ 15:17How did you think science was done?
For starters, if the data are sound and the experimentation is sound and the analyses are sound, then it doesn’t matter who’s doing them. Similarly, if the data are flawed, or what’s done with the data is flawed, then again, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it. Argumentum ad authoritarian is treated as the logical fallacy that it is, in real science. They don’t try to legitimize it.
If a paper is written and it’s wonderful, and someone doesn’t read it, they might still know what they’re talking about. If someone else has read it, they still might not know what they’re talking about. I just made a valid point that deductive reasoning relies on an exhaustive coverage of all possibilities, and when that is used in science, the science is invalidated if some of the possibilities are ruled out prematurely. Which seems to have happened; the temperature increase might have already happened as much as it’s going to happen, regardless of carbon saturation. There may not be an increase in water vapor in the years ahead. Or, if these things do happen and there’s a temperature increase, it might not hurt anything. Could even be a net gain.
You didn’t look, remember?
That’s probably okay. You referred me to BEST to brush aside these issues Anthony Watts found with the temperature stations. Pressed to provide a specific example of how a study by BEST can account for fifty years of incorrect measurements, you again played the “you haven’t read” card and the “science isn’t perfect” card, again failing to demonstrate sufficient grasp of the relevant concepts. All in all, I’m afraid this isn’t very convincing. It doesn’t specifically address the problems with the collection of the data.
I’m sure, once I go chasing your footnote rainbow it will all become clear.
But none of this addresses the point I’ve made here. If they’re practicing “science” but they aren’t failing to account for some of the possibilities, such as, there’s a limit to the warming that was detected earlier and there may not be any cataclysmic event coming — if they’re discarding that prematurely — then the science is bad. Doesn’t matter how many peer-reviewed papers and journals have been written about it.
I think you need to learn how to footnote. Probably need to do more reading. Watch how real scientists use footnotes. They provide foundation for what they are saying, and along the way they say how it is they know what they think they know. With specifics. They don’t say, here go read up, name the citation, and then later on jot something down about “We’ve provided multiple citations.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/08/2013 @ 16:45Captain Midnight: We all know that any aid given always goes to the people who benefit most from it, and never to line the pockets of tinpot dictators.
Zachriel Yes, the $75 billion claim only includes silver-bullets.
“Who was that masked man?” But Lone Ranger references aside, I understand your reluctance to discussing the efficaciousness of money spent outside of climate change. You do have your one drum to pound after all.
Captain Midnight: Seems to come down to whether 2100 is a colder and poorer world or a warmer and richer one. Wealth, both in money and energy, means people can react to changes in the environment.
Zachriel The scientific evidence indicates that the world will be poorer than otherwise if there is rapid anthropogenic global warming. Not only will climate change limit growth, but it will damage much of the world’s natural inheritance.
I do believe that your language of “this *will* happen” as opposed to “this *may* happen” has been pointed out to you before. As you can see from this NASA graph, the warming that is charted from 1910 to 1940 is very similar in slope to the warming from 1960 to now. So what is this “rapid” warming you’re talking about? Is it the same warming pointed out in the graph, or is there some other future trend of warming seen in the AGW proponents’ crystal ball?
Captain Midnight: Wealth, both in money and energy, means people can react to changes in the environment.
Zachriel We are in agreement on this point.
That means increasing people’s access to both money and energy is key. But carbon taxes in any form makes the majority of our energy sources more expensive. That’s the opposite tactic needed here , but that’s the go-to proposal for fixing global warming.
- Captain Midnight | 02/08/2013 @ 17:43mkfreeberg: For starters, if the data are sound and the experimentation is sound and the analyses are sound, then it doesn’t matter who’s doing them.
That’s correct.
mkfreeberg: Similarly, if the data are flawed, or what’s done with the data is flawed, then again, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it.
Again, that’s correct.
mkfreeberg: the temperature increase might have already happened as much as it’s going to happen, regardless of carbon saturation.
Sure, but that’s not what the evidence indicates.
mkfreeberg: Pressed to provide a specific example of how a study by BEST can account for fifty years of incorrect measurements, you again played the “you haven’t read” card and the “science isn’t perfect” card, again failing to demonstrate sufficient grasp of the relevant concepts.
Yes, you asked how a study by BEST can account for problems with the raw data. The answer is provided by the BEST project. They used a new process to re-analyze the raw data, and confirmed what other researchers had found. You can read about their methodology here: Rohde et al., Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process, 2012.
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 07:17Captain Midnight: I understand your reluctance to discussing the efficaciousness of money spent outside of climate change.
Actually corruption within any centralized process is an important issue, and a a valid objection.
Captain Midnight: I do believe that your language of “this *will* happen” as opposed to “this *may* happen” has been pointed out to you before.
Our statement was predicated by “the scientific evidence indicates”. Sorry, you must have missed that. All scientific findings are tentative. But you’ll need more than handwaving to undermine those findings—you’ll need evidence.
Captain Midnight: As you can see from this NASA graph, the warming that is charted from 1910 to 1940 is very similar in slope to the warming from 1960 to now.
Aerosol emissions were very high during that period, which helped cool the Earth. However, that was unsustainable, and the industrial nations imposed pollution controls.
Volcanoes also emit aerosols, which tend to cool the climate. The Mt. Pinatubo eruption, for instance, measurably cooled the Earth, and has been important for helping understand the effect of aerosols, and for calculating climate sensitivity. See Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.
Captain Midnight: But carbon taxes in any form makes the majority of our energy sources more expensive.
That’s correct. Carbon users are not paying for the full cost of their usage because they are dumping waste into the atmosphere. To avoid economic disruption, though, any policies would have to be phased in, with some action to help the poorer members of society, and with time for new technologies to mature.
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 07:30Why don’t you summarize it, in a useful way, here. Something more precise than “They used a process to re-analyze the raw data.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/09/2013 @ 07:30mkfreeberg: Why don’t you summarize it, in a useful way, here. Something more precise than “They used a process to re-analyze the raw data.”
They used some neat statistical tricks to determine whether the detected trends were real or artifacts. For instance, they used the jackknife method, which means taking random subsets of the data and seeing if they show the same trend as the full set. The jackknife method is a powerful tool for determining statistical significance. In a separate paper {Wickham et al. Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average
Using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications, 2012}, they tested the urban heat island effect, by excluding urban stations from their analysis.
“Many of the changes in land-surface temperature can be explained by a combination of volcanoes and a proxy for human greenhouse gas emissions.”
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 08:19http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/
But…the only test that really matters is, are they right when they say the Earth is getting warmer. You said the evidence indicates the Earth is not done heating up yet, but that’s not correct. Your rebuttal just now indicates the urban stations were simply excluded from the analysis and the analysis came out the same (incorrect) way. So, two problems: Your “science” looks more and more like what I called it, a faux-science set of techniques for systematically producing wrong answers that are politically expedient; and, if the technique you’re talking about involves simply excluding some readings and saying “Okay, we excluded the readings from urban stations, now tremble in fear of our unaltered scary findings” then it’s not clear why there was any need to task anyone with chasing your footnote-rainbow, or to try to conjure up this mystical goodwill about the “jackknife method”. It would been functionally synonymous for you to simply say, “When they exclude the urban stations they still come up with the same findings.”
You know, I’m sure a LOT could change and they’ll still come up with the same findings. Upton Sinclair said it’s very difficult to get a man to disclaim something when he has a livelihood connected to his belief in it.
Now that we’ve dispensed with that. To the complaint I was making: This faux-science comes up with theories about what the warming will be later on with the infusion of additional CO2 in the atmosphere; the subsequent history shows it to be wrong, so then a new study is started
in Berkeleyto revise the climate sensitivity downward a notch, to reconcile the mistaken theories with the new historical evidence and continue to predict a disaster.In addition to which, this faux-science seems to work by way of the following: “You said Berkeley when you meant something else, so you failed to keep our footnote-rainbow straight, you lose, we win, neener neener neener we win the argument. Hooray! We’re still doomed!” So…you were asking how I think science is done. Uh, that’s not it.
- mkfreeberg | 02/09/2013 @ 08:32mkfreeberg: But…the only test that really matters is, are they right when they say the Earth is getting warmer.
That’s certainly not the only evidence, indeed, far from it. There are studies concerning the changing composition of the atmosphere, irradiance studies, clouds, the cooling stratosphere, regional effects, heat budget, volcanoes, measurements by sondes, satellites, stations around the world, including near volcanoes and in arctic regions, etc.
mkfreeberg: You said the evidence indicates the Earth is not done heating up yet, but that’s not correct.
The reason why the Earth is likely to continue warming is because there is a forcing mechanism.
That’s funny. We cite a study published in Environmental Research Letters and Physics Letters, and you cite an online newspaper. Here’s the mean global surface temperature from 1995-2009:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/alden_1995a.gif
Also, the ocean heat content has continued to rise. See See Nuccitelli et al, Comment on Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance II. Relation to climate shifts, Physics Letters A 2012.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data_med.jpg
Also see:
http://thebentangle.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/skepticsvrealistsv3.gif
mkfreeberg: Your rebuttal just now indicates the urban stations were simply excluded from the analysis and the analysis came out the same (incorrect) way.
Thought you asked a question. We pointed to two examples from a single team tasked with re-analyzing the raw surface temperature data.
mkfreeberg: if the technique you’re talking about involves simply excluding some readings and saying “Okay, we excluded the readings from urban stations, now tremble in fear of our unaltered scary findings” then it’s not clear why there was any need to task anyone with chasing your footnote-rainbow,
Because the actual results are what matters, not a summary stated on a blog.
mkfreeberg: or to try to conjure up this mystical goodwill about the “jackknife method”. It would been functionally synonymous for you to simply say, “When they exclude the urban stations they still come up with the same findings.”
No, it wouldn’t. You’re conflating two entirely different tests. The jackknife method uses random subsets to test consistency across the global set, and to determine statistical significance.
What the BEST team did was independently analyze the raw data and determined the trend. That determination matches findings from other studies by other teams.
mkfreeberg: This faux-science comes up with theories about what the warming will be later on with the infusion of additional CO2 in the atmosphere; the subsequent history shows it to be wrong, so then a new study is started in Berkeley to revise the climate sensitivity downward a notch, to reconcile the mistaken theories with the new historical evidence and continue to predict a disaster.
Gee willikers. We already corrected you on that. The Berkeley team didn’t research climate sensitivity, but the temperature trend.
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 09:36The time’s probably come for you to stop taking turns using the same account for your comments. This is very confusing:
mkfreeberg: For starters, if the data are sound and the experimentation is sound and the analyses are sound, then it doesn’t matter who’s doing them.
That’s correct.
mkfreeberg: Similarly, if the data are flawed, or what’s done with the data is flawed, then again, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it.
Again, that’s correct.
Then…
That’s funny. We cite a study published in Environmental Research Letters and Physics Letters, and you cite an online newspaper.
Also, if you read the article I provided, you find the “online newspaper” does not rely on itself. It relies on The Met office in UK, as well as many other sources in “the media,” reversing themselves, admitting they had the science wrong. Who’s not reading things now?
But really, the lot of you need to go off and come to some kind of unified decision about this appeal-to-authority business. It seems some of you are engaged in this thing, attempting to legitimize it, even coming out and arguing that it should be an okay way to argue things…at times it seems almost like you’re playing poker, and there’s some kind of a “straight flush beats three-of-a-kind” hierarchy in place. Oh, you have a Environmental Research Letters and Physics Letters report, and I have an online newspaper, OBVIOUSLY that means you should “win.” And there are others among you who are willing to concede what is more evidently true: If the science is good, it doesn’t matter who wrote it up, and if it’s bad, it still doesn’t matter who wrote it up. Just like math problems. If the question is 2+2 and the answer is 5, it doesn’t matter who’s saying 5.
And, the whole concept of the tipping point remains a bunch of nonsense. Profitable nonsense, for some, but still nonsense.
- mkfreeberg | 02/09/2013 @ 09:45Zachriel: That’s funny.
Because it’s funny.
mkfreeberg: Also, if you read the article I provided, you find the “online newspaper” does not rely on itself.
That’s right. That makes it a secondary source. So let’s check the primary source they relied upon:
So, the “online newspaper” article was wrong in fact, and wrong in principle.
mkfreeberg: Also, if you read the article I provided, you find the “online newspaper” does not rely on itself. It relies on The Met office in UK, as well as many other sources in “the media,” reversing themselves, admitting they had the science wrong.
Yes, and we then showed you why they were wrong in fact, by pointing to the temperature data, and wrong in principle, by pointing to the oceanic heat content.
mkfreeberg: But really, the lot of you need to go off and come to some kind of unified decision about this appeal-to-authority business.
It’s the data that ultimately matters. In this case, we showed you that your claim, based on the “online newspaper”, was directly contradicted by the primary source you and they relied upon.
mkfreeberg: If the science is good, it doesn’t matter who wrote it up, and if it’s bad, it still doesn’t matter who wrote it up.
That’s right.
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 10:02So, the “online newspaper” article was wrong in fact, and wrong in principle.
No, take the entire passage:
The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°C/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
It all depends on context. We could calculate the linear trend from here, or here, or here, and get different readings on the “warming”…but meanwhile, the claim is correct. There has been no substantial warming since 1997.
So, the “online newspaper” article was wrong in fact, and wrong in principle.
That is true, with two exceptions: It wasn’t wrong in fact. And it wasn’t wrong in principle. Other than those two minor flaws, that statement is perfect.
- mkfreeberg | 02/09/2013 @ 10:09mkfreeberg: No, take the entire passage
We read the entire response by the MET. They point out that pauses are not unusual in the temperature record, and such pauses don’t change the overall trend. We also studied the temperature data, and the range mentioned in the “on-line newspaper” is cherry-picked.
The headline said “Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago”, which is directly contradicted by the primary source.
“For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.”
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 10:18http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
We could remove the influences from ENSO (El Niño and La Niña). What do you think that would show?
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 10:22They point out that pauses are not unusual in the temperature record, and such pauses don’t change the overall trend. We also studied the temperature data, and the range mentioned in the “on-line newspaper” is cherry-picked.
Right. Just as I said, it all depends on context. Put immense weight on this data over here, and entirely disregard that data over there. And you can get any results you want and call it “science.”
But that isn’t the spin you’re supposed to be putting on this. You’re supposed to be saying this:
When you read Phil Jones’ actual words, you see he’s saying there is a warming trend but it’s not statistically significant. He’s not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He’s discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period.
So, it is undisputed that there has been no statistically significant warming during the period in question. The difference in opinion is whether it’s meaningful. You seem to be saying the stall in warming is illusionary because the data have been “cherry picked,” whereas this other authority I’ve linked admits that the stall is genuine, we’re just not supposed to think too much of it.
Anyway, this has all been discussed before. You say a doubling of carbon will lead to such-and-such a temperature increase because of the water vapor and the sensitivity issue. The carbon saturation goes up, the warming doesn’t happen, and there’s another round of excuses…and you play another round of chase-the-footnote-rainbow and research-paper-poker. Again.
None of which even suggests that there’s any sort of tipping point approaching. None of which comes close to explaining why, all the species of plants & animals on the planet can have an effect on the environment and it is no big deal, but humans are somehow obliged to remain “neutral” and if they’re not, then surely some doomsday scenario is fast approaching.
- mkfreeberg | 02/09/2013 @ 10:25mkfreeberg: So, it is undisputed that there has been no statistically significant warming during the period in question.
“For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.”
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 10:40http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
As the article said, the range was cherry-picked, from the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño to the tail end of a double-dip La Niña. Even then, it showed an increase in temperature. We could remove the influences from ENSO (El Niño and La Niña). What do you think that would show?
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 10:45Maybe those who wrote the article should turn their talents energies toward helping human industry to bring products and services to market, to improve the lives of their consumers — instead of helping the “green” industry with all its flim-flammery, and attempts to destroy those industries.
Not seeing much good science here. I’m seeing some anonymous people make a big show out of having read things. And their argument seems to boil down to “you cherry-picked the data the wrong way, you’re supposed to cherry-pick it OUR way to keep the story scary.” I got a feeling of people were more interested in helping each other, rather than obstructing each other, who knows? Maybe the “environment” would benefit.
- mkfreeberg | 02/09/2013 @ 11:48mkfreeberg: Maybe those who wrote the article should turn their talents energies toward helping human industry …
Turns out that weather and climate are important to industry. You never answered,
As the article said, the range was cherry-picked, from the middle of an exceptionally strong El Niño to the tail end of a double-dip La Niña. Even then, it showed an increase in temperature. We could remove the influences from ENSO (El Niño and La Niña). What do you think that would show?
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 13:18I’m just not that worried about it. I’m more concerned with what we should call this weird branch of “science,” where people go on the Internet and “win” arguments with strangers by tasking them to read research works, more often than not by title & author only, without citing anything specific from them.
Where the authorities who write the research, and those who cite it, arbitrarily determine this-evidence-over-here should be given infinite weight, and that-evidence-over-there should be given zero. Where, when you run into so much as a scintilla of resistance or even scrutiny, or just curiosity, you just use the phrase “hand waving” to — well, to wave it away. What should we call this kind of science? Kiddie-science? Hello-Kitty science? Pokemon science?
- mkfreeberg | 02/09/2013 @ 16:27mkfreeberg: I’m just not that worried about it.
In other words, you introduce a claim, “Global Warming Stopped 16 Years Ago” referencing the original source. The original source not only says that global temperatures are warmer now than 16 years ago, but explain why and how the data is being cherry picked. When confronted with this, you say you are “not that worried about it”. In other words, you make claims that you can’t and won’t support.
- Zachriel | 02/09/2013 @ 18:56If that was an accurate reflection of what I said, which it isn’t, it would still be quite reasonable. Global temperatures are higher; it somehow follows we should automatically be worried about this? How?
Compared to, “science” being perverted. Skepticism is re-defined as gullibility, and gullibility is re-defined as skepticism. I think that’s a much bigger problem. Any reason I shouldn’t? California was pretty nippy today.
- mkfreeberg | 02/09/2013 @ 20:04Captain Midnight: I understand your reluctance to discussing the efficaciousness of money spent outside of climate change.
Zachriel Actually corruption within any centralized process is an important issue, and a a valid objection.
And yet a centrally controlled response is the go-to response for fixing climate change.
Captain Midnight: I do believe that your language of “this *will* happen” as opposed to “this *may* happen” has been pointed out to you before.
Zachriel Our statement was predicated by “the scientific evidence indicates”. Sorry, you must have missed that. All scientific findings are tentative. But you’ll need more than handwaving to undermine those findings—you’ll need evidence.
Interesting that you acknowledge that all scientific findings are tentative, but, as it has been abundantly pointed out before, you lapse into the language of certainty, not speculation. I don’t need to undermine the findings since it is your use of absolutisms, not the findings, that was the issue being discussed.
Captain Midnight: As you can see from this NASA graph, the warming that is charted from 1910 to 1940 is very similar in slope to the warming from 1960 to now.
Zachriel Aerosol emissions were very high during that period, which helped cool the Earth. However, that was unsustainable, and the industrial nations imposed pollution controls.
And again aerosols. But for man-made aerosols to be having a massive cooling effect now, dropping temperature averages worldwide, they would need to have significant localized cooling, and yet we don’t see this. In Kaufmann et al 2011, it’s suggested that sulfate emissions from a coal-greedy China could be reducing the rate of warming on Earth, leading to the flattening in temperature increases in the past decade.
But here’s the problem: if China’s sulfates were the cause for the flat-lining of recent temps, then the cooling should be happening in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere should be heating up since China’s sulfates don’t make it easily to the southern hemisphere to cool it down there. But the result is exactly the opposite.
Captain Midnight: Wealth, both in money and energy, means people can react to changes in the environment.
Zachriel We are in agreement on this point.
Captain Midnight: But carbon taxes in any form makes the majority of our energy sources more expensive.
Zachriel That’s correct. Carbon users are not paying for the full cost of their usage because they are dumping waste into the atmosphere. To avoid economic disruption, though, any policies would have to be phased in, with some action to help the poorer members of society, and with time for new technologies to mature.
We both agree that carbon taxes make energy more expensive. We both agree that both money and energy is necessary for people to react to changes to the environment. And yet you want to raise costs of energy by slapping on a carbon tax. This is the opposite of helpful. For this to happen, a large centralized process would be required, and that invites corruption. And again, we see a centrally controlled response is the go-to response for fixing climate change.
I’m left with the impression that it’s not so much about the climate as it is about control. And I dare say that Kip’s Law is in force here.
- Captain Midnight | 02/09/2013 @ 21:27mkfreeberg: If that was an accurate reflection of what I said, which it isn’t, it would still be quite reasonable. Global temperatures are higher; it somehow follows we should automatically be worried about this? How?
Good question. The problem is that we have identified the mechanism which is causing the warming trend, and there is reason to believe that this warming trend will continue, and that it will lead to rapid climate change.
We’d be happy to discuss the evidence concerning the mechanism. Start with the fact that the surface is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, the signature of greenhouse warming.
- Zachriel | 02/10/2013 @ 06:37I’d rather start with the flaws in the science, and the notion that we cannot really trust it. Or let me state it in a less controversial way: There are some imposing limits on how much we can trust it.
- mkfreeberg | 02/10/2013 @ 07:21Captain Midnight: And yet a centrally controlled response is the go-to response for fixing climate change.
Actually, market-based solutions seem to the be the preferred option by most analysts. It will require putting the costs of carbon emissions on the emitters, though.
Captain Midnight: Interesting that you acknowledge that all scientific findings are tentative, but, as it has been abundantly pointed out before, you lapse into the language of certainty, not speculation.
If you actually read the citations we have provided, you would find that most studies have probabilities attached. Studies have narrowed on 2-4.5°C as the likely range for climate sensitivity with the most likely value of 3°C. There has been more uncertainty on the upper limit, while the lower limit is more constrained, but more recent research has helped place upper limits as well. Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
Captain Midnight: And again aerosols.
We asked above. We’ll ask again. Do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to independently and empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity?
Captain Midnight: But for man-made aerosols to be having a massive cooling effect now, dropping temperature averages worldwide, they would need to have significant localized cooling, and yet we don’t see this.
Insolation varies considerably, and has decreased significantly over the last several decades, though the trend has changed somewhat in recent years.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/f/n/clearsky1.gif
Captain Midnight: But here’s the problem: if China’s sulfates were the cause for the flat-lining of recent temps, then the cooling should be happening in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere should be heating up since China’s sulfates don’t make it easily to the southern hemisphere to cool it down there.
China is not the only source of aerosols. The southern hemisphere has also had substantial pollution, while its much larger oceans mean that surface temperatures change much more slowly.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/g/d/clearsky2.gif
Captain Midnight: We both agree that carbon taxes make energy more expensive.
More expensive at the source, but that’s because carbon emitters are not currently paying the full cost of their usage.
Captain Midnight: We both agree that both money and energy is necessary for people to react to changes to the environment.
Yes, just as controlling conventional air and water pollution required money and energy. Saying that doesn’t excuse inaction, and certainly significant changes were made without dismantling the entire global industrial infrastructure, as you repeatedly imply.
Captain Midnight: And yet you want to raise costs of energy by slapping on a carbon tax. This is the opposite of helpful.
Your question presupposes the problem of anthropogenic climate change. We’re open to your ideas on how to reduce the human emission of greenhouse gases.
- Zachriel | 02/10/2013 @ 07:29mkfreeberg: I’d rather start with the flaws in the science, and the notion that we cannot really trust it.
Says the blogger using the “Internet” to communicate.
Please note that you are not expressing skepticism, but cynicism. Certainly, there are times when science is less than perfect, or flat out wrong, but more times than not, they are closer to the fact than mere guessing, or handwaving.
mkfreeberg: Or let me state it in a less controversial way: There are some imposing limits on how much we can trust it.
That’s the skeptical position. Go ahead.
- Zachriel | 02/10/2013 @ 07:40Says the blogger using the “Internet” to communicate.
Not sure what your point is.
Please note that you are not expressing skepticism, but cynicism. Certainly, there are times when science is less than perfect, or flat out wrong, but more times than not, they are closer to the fact than mere guessing, or handwaving.
That isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about this thing called “science” — it’s not real science — devolving into a puddle of silly dogma that is not to be challenged even when it starts to contradict the evidence, along with common sense. When it loses its alpha channel. Like a careless genealogist, meticulously assembling the family tree, dutifully recording all the names and dates of birth & death, but entirely losing track of how these things are “known.”
This is how fake science has been doing us harm lately, through the dogma that is not to be challenged. You have that, and you might as well not bother with the research. The temperature is going up eleven degrees over the next century. More guns cause more crime. Girls are no different from boys. A stimulus plan will revive the economy.
You know you’re dealing with dogma, when the theory runs into a conflict with the reality, and the reality has to yield. So I’m not sure why you want to “start with the fact that the surface is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, the signature of greenhouse warming” when that is not the point of contention. It comes off looking like you want to fixate on the part you’ve studied the most and avoid the parts you’ve studied the least. Or, feel least confident in your ability to defend.
- mkfreeberg | 02/10/2013 @ 07:49mkfreeberg: Not sure what your point is.
Science has so permeated modern civilization that virtually every activity depends on science, from transportation to medicine to communication.
mkfreeberg: That isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about this thing called “science” —
Then you should consistently use the scare-quotes, or change it to some meaningful term, such as “scientific establishment” or whatever it is you think you mean.
mkfreeberg: it’s not real science — devolving into a puddle of silly dogma that is not to be challenged even when it starts to contradict the evidence, along with common sense.
As for common sense, most science contradicts common sense, otherwise it wouldn’t have to be discovered. The Earth moves. Solid matter is mostly empty space. The force that causes the apple to fall is the same force that causes the planets to orbit. Quantum particles either don’t have an exact position or an exact momentum, but can have one or the other.
Still don’t see a clear definition or description. You’re against “science” that contradicts the evidence. So do we. So where does that leave us? The only way to determine whether a particular scientific field has “jumped the shark” is to examine the evidence, something you refuse to do.
mkfreeberg: This is how fake science has been doing us harm lately, through the dogma that is not to be challenged. You have that, and you might as well not bother with the research.
That’s ironic because we’re always the one who insists on looking at the evidence, and it is climatologists who exert the effort to collect the evidence.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/
mkfreeberg: So I’m not sure why you want to “start with the fact that the surface is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, the signature of greenhouse warming” when that is not the point of contention.
Sure it is. You just said “science” or “fake science” contradicts the evidence. You can only determine that by examining the evidence.
- Zachriel | 02/10/2013 @ 09:12Then you should consistently use the scare-quotes, or change it to some meaningful term, such as “scientific establishment” or whatever it is you think you mean.
Okay, that’s reasonable. Of course that means, for the purpose of this conversation, we will be using this other term to describe the thing that, unfortunately, is more commonly called “science” without the scare quotes. But I’m sure we can keep that straight. We could call it faux-science. And the definition is a rather simple one: When it says something, and practical experience says the opposite, it starts to “preach” much like a religious order would preach, that this observed practical experience should be invalidated, discarded, discredited, nudged aside, whatever is necessary to make the dogma come out right. It finds excuses to lose all the curiosity-energy that genuine science should have.
Of course, I’ve already called this red-dot science: “…any time the outcomes of the underlying experimentation & research are pre-determined.” So when you do your experiment, it should show X, and if it doesn’t then you must somehow have been doing it wrong. If we theorize boys & girls are the same by giving toy guns to the girls and dolls to the boys, and the boys start picking up the dolls, pointing them at each other and yelling “bang,” we aren’t supposed to notice that. That does seem to be the problem I’m identifying here. And it seems we’re having a disagreement about me putting unlimited faith where you want me to be putting it. Red-dot science is probably the term we should be using, to avoid confusion.
The only way to determine whether a particular scientific field has “jumped the shark” is to examine the evidence, something you refuse to do.
Actually, what I refused to do is something significantly different from that. Those two things are different. They are not the same.
- mkfreeberg | 02/10/2013 @ 09:30http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/
And I have no idea what, specifically, I’m supposed to be looking at here. You continue to throw unspecific and useless links at me, and at others. Has the look and feel of red dot science.
- mkfreeberg | 02/10/2013 @ 09:35mkfreeberg: Of course that means, for the purpose of this conversation, we will be using this other term to describe the thing that, unfortunately, is more commonly called “science” without the scare quotes.
Yes, we understand your point. For instance, social sciences often get caught up in discussion of whether they are sufficiently rigorous to support their claims. Certainly, some social scientists overstate the certainty of their results. Granted.
mkfreeberg: We could call it faux-science.
Sure. Something that has the imprimatur of science, but lacking the scientific foundation.
mkfreeberg: And the definition is a rather simple one: When it says something, and practical experience says the opposite, it starts to “preach” much like a religious order would preach, that this observed practical experience should be invalidated, discarded, discredited, nudged aside, whatever is necessary to make the dogma come out right. It finds excuses to lose all the curiosity-energy that genuine science should have.
Sorry, but you’re not particularly good at definitions. Those are common characteristics, though. Faux-science is also distinguished by the Galileo Gambit, and by lack of cross-checking from what should be related fields of study.
mkfreeberg: And I have no idea what, specifically, I’m supposed to be looking at here.
It’s called irony.
In any case, you haven’t provided any reason to suggest that climatology is faux-science. We’ve provided more than enough information that climate scientists collect observational evidence, often under difficult conditions, work across multiple disciplines, providing important cross-checks, subject their hypotheses to rigorous empirical testing, publish for their peers, and change their positions as new data becomes available.
Climate science doesn’t meet your definition of faux-science, or the usual definition of a pseudoscience. We’ve attempted to address the evidence, but you’ve said it doesn’t matter, so there would be no way for you to determine if “practical experience” (which we take to mean scientific observation) is being nudged aside.
- Zachriel | 02/10/2013 @ 10:32Wow. So the “curiosity-energy” — not a hard thing to measure at all, in terms of whether it’s there or not — I stipulate that this should be present in true science, and is demonstrably absent in this phony red-dot science. Not sure what the problem is there. But in the same paragraph I pointed to this desire to invalidate, discard, discredit, nudge aside problematic observations…
You say “Sorry, but you’re not particularly good at definitions” — without a reasoned objection or a proposed solution of any kind.
Then you make a statement about irony.
The irony.
- mkfreeberg | 02/10/2013 @ 10:39mkfreeberg: You say “Sorry, but you’re not particularly good at definitions” — without a reasoned objection or a proposed solution of any kind.
Not to belabor the point, but definitions are generally succinct. From Merriam-Webster: pseudoscience, a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific.
Pseudoscience may have other characteristics implied in the definition or commonly found.
mkfreeberg: But in the same paragraph I pointed to this desire to invalidate, discard, discredit, nudge aside problematic observations…
Yes, and we discussed that. Climate scientists collect observational evidence, often under difficult conditions, work across multiple disciplines, providing important cross-checks, subject their hypotheses to rigorous empirical testing, publish for their peers, and change their positions as new data becomes available. That’s contrary to your definition.
- Zachriel | 02/10/2013 @ 14:42This may be a bit too much for you to understand, but it is desirable to build on that definition. There’s a difference between the subjective and the objective, and as a general rule, the job of defining something has been completed all the way when it’s no longer subjective. But I guess you like them short. Well, short is good, so long as the job isn’t left undone. They’re like skirts.
“Erroneously regarded as scientific.” Okay, that’s a definition, but it doesn’t really define, because you’re not getting a criteria without flipping around, then going to the definition of “scientific”…and then, we have to have a debate about all that. This hurts the process of defining.
But when the theory says something, and practical experience says the opposite, and the science starts to “preach” much like a religious order would preach, that this observed practical experience should be invalidated, discarded, discredited, nudged aside, whatever is necessary to make the dogma come out right…that is an event that has the virtue of being testable. You may not like that the testing is being done. And, it is true that this is wordier than the dictionary definition. But it’s a legitimate issue to raise, and it’s a legitimate, objectively measurable, definition.
- mkfreeberg | 02/10/2013 @ 14:50mkfreeberg: There’s a difference between the subjective and the objective, and as a general rule, the job of defining something has been completed all the way when it’s no longer subjective.
A definition should be as unambiguous as possible without being overly complex. And if you are using standard terminology, then the definition should comport with how people use the terms.
mkfreeberg: But when the theory says something, and practical experience says the opposite, and the science starts to “preach” much like a religious order would preach, that this observed practical experience should be invalidated, discarded, discredited, nudged aside, whatever is necessary to make the dogma come out right…that is an event that has the virtue of being testable.
In any case, modern climate science does not meet your definition of “faux-science”. As we said, climate scientists collect observational evidence, often under difficult conditions, work across multiple disciplines, providing important cross-checks, subject their hypotheses to rigorous empirical testing, publish for their peers, and change their positions as new data becomes available. That’s contrary to your definition.
- Zachriel | 02/10/2013 @ 17:59A definition should be as unambiguous as possible without being overly complex. And if you are using standard terminology, then the definition should comport with how people use the terms.
Huh. Seems you just said, a definition isn’t useful unless it’s defining things that are already defined, and in exactly the same way they’re already being defined. Looks like our difference of opinion really has to do with thinking of new ideas. There are other people out there besides yourselves who insist, even in the realm of science and technology, nothing is valid unless it is an echo of something that has existed already. They’re essentially prohibiting science & technology, and think they’re championing it. It’s very sad.
That’s contrary to your definition.
Actually, while it’s all very impressive-sounding and quite dazzling and spellbinding to someone who’s open to being dazzled and spellbound, none of it is contrary to my definition.
- mkfreeberg | 02/10/2013 @ 18:45mkfreeberg: Seems you just said, a definition isn’t useful unless it’s defining things that are already defined, and in exactly the same way they’re already being defined.
No, you misunderstand. For the purposes of discussion, you can define anything you like. It’s best to avoid common terms, so as to avoid confusion. Definitions should be as concise and unambiguous as possible. We have no problem with you defining a term for the purposes of this discussion.
So that brings us back to your definition of “faux science”. It may or may not have anything to do with science or faux. It may or may not be concise or unambiguous. We can only determine that by examining the definition.
Your definition seems to hinge on “practical experience”. In science, that usually means hypothesis-testing, or simply observation. We asked about this before.
Climate scientists certainly do not “invalidated, discarded, discredited, nudged aside, whatever is necessary to make the dogma come out right”. Climate scientists collect observational evidence, often under difficult conditions, work across multiple disciplines, providing important cross-checks, subject their hypotheses to rigorous empirical testing, publish for their peers, and change their positions as new data becomes available.
Your claim is that climate science meets your definition of “faux science”. We responded three times previously, now four times, that it does not, and you have yet to address that response.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 05:32No, you misunderstand.
Do I?
You leap to that conclusion quickly, with myself and with others. I don’t think you’re noodling it out very well. In fact, that’s a constant with alwarmism and with liberalism in general: “Everyone who doesn’t agree with us, misunderstands.”
Your claim is that climate science meets your definition of “faux science”. We responded three times previously, now four times, that it does not, and you have yet to address that response.
And you don’t parse very accurately.
mkfreeberg: But when the theory says something, and practical experience says the opposite, and the science starts to “preach” much like a religious order would preach, that this observed practical experience should be invalidated, discarded, discredited, nudged aside, whatever is necessary to make the dogma come out right…that is an event that has the virtue of being testable.
[Z:] In any case, modern climate science does not meet your definition of “faux-science”. As we said, climate scientists collect observational evidence, often under difficult conditions, work across multiple disciplines, providing important cross-checks, subject their hypotheses to rigorous empirical testing, publish for their peers, and change their positions as new data becomes available. That’s contrary to your definition.
Collect observational evidence: Not contrary to the definition, if the evidence is then filtered out according to whether it meets the dogma. So you said this is contrary to my definition. Not necessarily correct.
“difficult conditions”: Entirely irrelevant, I’m not even sure why you keep mentioning that. So that is not contrary to my definition.
“work across multiple disciplines”: Also irrelevant.
“providing important cross-checks”: Also irrelevant, if you’re only providing cross-checks on the data that comport with the desired dogma, and discarding the data that don’t. Or, if the data on which the important cross-checks are performed, are subsequently invalidated, discarded, discredited, nudged aside, whatever is necessary to make the dogma come out right…
…by the way, are they performing these important cross-checks on data, or findings? Those two are not the same.
“subject their hypotheses to rigorous empirical testing…” Okay, good to know. What do they do once the hypothesis conflicts with the testing? That is the specific issue under discussion. It’s weird. It’s like, whichever one among you went and pasted that from the on-line library, didn’t even bother to read or understand what I was pointing out. And here you are doing it in quadruplicate.
There are times when I think the lot of you are in some experiment to test the behavior of conservative bloggers and blog-commenters. There are other times when I think you’re involved in an experiment to see if the Internet has a maximum storage capacity. Either study would be equally ill-informed.
“publish for their peers”: Very impressive. Actually, this would reinforce somewhat the thing I pointed out, since this is how humans tend to behave in groups, particularly institutionalized groups. Conquest Rule. The institutions lean left…and they embrace dogma, showing an institutionalized hostility toward anything that doesn’t fit.
“…and change their positions as new data become available.” Ah hah! Now we’re getting to the meat of it. But when the data show one of 1) No cataclysmic event is coming, or 2) If one IS, their our scientific ability to predict the what & the how much & the when, is so infantile as to be functionally useless…they continue their advocacy. Which, I suppose, is not part of the “science.” So I guess that makes it all okay.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 07:05mkfreeberg: You leap to that conclusion quickly, with myself and with others. I don’t think you’re noodling it out very well. In fact, that’s a constant with alwarmism and with liberalism in general: “Everyone who doesn’t agree with us, misunderstands.”
You misunderstood our point. We know because you misstated our position. That has nothing to do with “alarmism” or “liberalism”.
mkfreeberg: And here you are doing it in quadruplicate.
Fourth time’s a charm.
mkfreeberg: Collect observational evidence: Not contrary to the definition, if the evidence is then filtered out according to whether it meets the dogma. So you said this is contrary to my definition. Not necessarily correct. “difficult conditions”: Entirely irrelevant, I’m not even sure why you keep mentioning that. So that is not contrary to my definition.
It’s suggests that scientists are not ignoring evidence, as they are going to a lot of trouble to collect it. However, it is not necessarily inconsistent with your definition. It is certainly possible they are ignoring anything contrary to their preconceived conclusions.
mkfreeberg: “work across multiple disciplines”: Also irrelevant.
Actually, it’s highly relevant. Valid fields of study cross one another. That means if someone in atmospherics disregards certain evidence, someone in physics or chemistry may certainly notice. Compare to pseudoscientific claims often heard on forums that the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics.
mkfreeberg: “providing important cross-checks”: Also irrelevant, if you’re only providing cross-checks on the data that comport with the desired dogma, and discarding the data that don’t.
This crosschecking across multiple fields is an important component of the scientific method and objectivity. Someone in a particular specialty may disregard evidence, but because it overlaps with related fields, it is likely to be discovered by others. To maintain your assertion that climate science is “faux science” means that the problem not only involves climate scientists, but scientists in many other fields.
mkfreeberg: …by the way, are they performing these important cross-checks on data, or findings? Those two are not the same.
Both. In valid fields of science, the results in one field should be consistent with results in other fields. So, biologists claim the Earth must be old for evolution to work, while geologists confirm this with studies of geological strata, and physicists confirm this with radiometric dating, and astronomers confirm this with theories of planetary formation, and so on.
mkfreeberg: What do they do once the hypothesis conflicts with the testing?
Publish so that others can study the apparent conflict. Scientists make a name for themselves by overturning established orthodoxy. But that requires evidence, and not merely a wave of the hands
mkfreeberg: “publish for their peers”: Very impressive. Actually, this would reinforce somewhat the thing I pointed out, since this is how humans tend to behave in groups, particularly institutionalized groups.
Sure it’s possible, but the larger the group, the more likely the result is to be objective. Valid fields of science overlap, so the group includes not just climatology, but atmospheric physics, glaciology, paleo-climatology, ocean chemistry, biology, ecology, statistics and metrology, oceanography, forestry, geology, geophysics, geochemistry, planetology, etc.
mkfreeberg: But when the data show one of 1) No cataclysmic event is coming …
Not sure what you mean by “cataclysmic event”, but the data does show significant anthropogenic climate change.
mkfreeberg: or 2) If one IS, their our scientific ability to predict the what & the how much & the when, is so infantile as to be functionally useless
Actually, the basic physics of greenhouse warming is fairly well understood. While the reaction of the Earth’s climate is chaotic, the fact is that the energy content is increasing.
So, we’re back to you making scientific claims, but you have been unwilling to consider the scientific evidence.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 08:31You misunderstood our point. We know because you misstated our position. That has nothing to do with “alarmism” or “liberalism”.
And yet…it is a constant.
It persists even when subsequent conversation shows you really did misunderstand something, and you misunderstood something important.
This isn’t science, it’s a comfort zone.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 08:57Notably, you didn’t respond to the substance of our comment.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 09:49Your comment is much like the faux-science. You’ve reached a conclusion: I’ve misunderstood something. Conclusion comes first even though there’s nothing to support it. Then, you flail about looking for the evidence, not quite so much to “support” it, as to sell it.
Endlessly.
So when I pointed out that this is not real science — it works in exactly the reverse order — there really wasn’t much more that had to be said.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 10:07mkfreeberg: I’ve misunderstood something. Conclusion comes first even though there’s nothing to support it.
We reached our conclusion based on the facts, which you have ignored. You seem to think by simply asserting climate science is “faux science” that the claim stands without support.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 10:14No, you need to go back and read my comments again.
Funny, innit? In your world I’m constantly misunderstanding something and need to go back and re-read something. Often when you leave it undefined what exactly it is I’m supposed to have missed.
Tends to support my theory. See how I did that; formed a theory based on the evidence. As the evidence continues to arrive, the theory either fails, becomes better defined, or becomes better supported…at least one of those things. Reality shapes the theory rather than the other way around.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 10:32mkfreeberg: No, you need to go back and read my comments again.
Be happy to.
…
Okay. You provided a definition of “faux science”. You claimed that climate science meets your definition of “faux science”. We provided reasons why climate science does not meet your definition. You have to yet to respond in any substantive manner to those reasons.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 11:24We provided reasons why climate science does not meet your definition. You have to yet to respond in any substantive manner to those reasons.
+++blink+++
Item by item is not sufficient, then. Doesn’t qualify as “any substantive manner.”
Looks like now we have to have an argument about the meaning of substantive (and I’m taking it you mean def. 2). Well, I respectfully disagree I suppose.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 13:37Captain Midnight: And yet a centrally controlled response is the go-to response for fixing climate change.
Zachriel Actually, market-based solutions seem to the be the preferred option by most analysts. It will require putting the costs of carbon emissions on the emitters, though.
And putting in place some carbon tax or cap and trade system will require, all together now, class, a centrally controlled response.
Captain Midnight: Interesting that you acknowledge that all scientific findings are tentative, but, as it has been abundantly pointed out before, you lapse into the language of certainty, not speculation.
Zachriel If you actually read the citations we have provided, you would find that most studies have probabilities attached. Studies have narrowed on 2-4.5°C as the likely range for climate sensitivity with the most likely value of 3°C. There has been more uncertainty on the upper limit, while the lower limit is more constrained, but more recent research has helped place upper limits as well. Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
Now this, this is precisely why you are the poster child of the cuttlefish maneuver. The issue is *your* use of absolute language in these discussions. Your response is to point to the scientists. I respond that it’s not them, but *your* use of absolute language that was the point. You then respond by *again* pointing to scientists with a reference that has nothing to do with *your* use of absolute language. Like a cuttlefish, you squirt out your digital ink to cloud the issue.
Captain Midnight: And again aerosols.
Zachriel We asked above. We’ll ask again. Do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to independently and empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity?
“We have top men working on it now.” “Who?” “Top… Men.” So I should just shut up now because you ask whether scientists are looking into it, I guess. This is an appeal to authority.
Captain Midnight: But here’s the problem: if China’s sulfates were the cause for the flat-lining of recent temps, then the cooling should be happening in the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere should be heating up since China’s sulfates don’t make it easily to the southern hemisphere to cool it down there.
Zachriel China is not the only source of aerosols. The southern hemisphere has also had substantial pollution, while its much larger oceans mean that surface temperatures change much more slowly.
And who said that China was the only source? Nobody. But China is a significant source of aerosols now, which your links show. But your links also show that the majority of aerosol effects are in the *northern* hemisphere. Your second image shows a significant reduction of aerosols in the southern hemisphere, so there should be an increase in temperatures there. But, again, that’s the opposite of the numbers we’re given by climate scientists.
Captain Midnight: We both agree that carbon taxes make energy more expensive.
Zachriel More expensive at the source, but that’s because carbon emitters are not currently paying the full cost of their usage.
And these power generators will just eat the increased cost? Hah! Increased costs would get passed down to the consumers. And the increased cost would result in less money and power for the people. That is, again, the opposite of what is needed. Access to wealth, in the form of money and power, is what separates the living conditions of Papua New Guinea tribesman from that of an urban Berliner. And yet you are repeatedly going back to the idea of making energy more expensive.
Zachriel Saying that doesn’t excuse inaction, and certainly significant changes were made without dismantling the entire global industrial infrastructure, as you repeatedly imply.
How about instead of inferring from my statements, we go to our current President’s own words. Then-Senator Obama stated his vision for 40% of the U.S. energy production, “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” At a different part of the same interview, he said that under his “plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Coal plants are shutting down because of his priorities. And we have what, exactly, to step up and provide power in their dismantled place?
All of this would reduce the wealth of the people, both in their money and energy. But that’s OK for both you and President Obama since the goal of fighting demon global warming is more important than ensuring people have the wealth to manage their lives.
Captain Midnight: And yet you want to raise costs of energy by slapping on a carbon tax. This is the opposite of helpful.
Zachriel Your question presupposes the problem of anthropogenic climate change.
Well, duh. I’m talking to someone who believes in anthropogenic climate change, and I’m discussing the resulting decrease in people’s wealth because of your reaction to it. Each time you are willing to lower people’s standard of living by taking from them their present wealth for the promise that 80-100 years from now the climate will be a fraction of a degree cooler because of it.
Zachriel We’re open to your ideas on how to reduce the human emission of greenhouse gases.
That assumes I believe it is necessary to reduce human emissions of greenhouse gases in the first place. I find Bjorn Lomborg’s position to be the most logical and ethical: do the most good for the most people with the money we have. Fighting global warming returns pennies on the dollar worth of benefits. I find it telling that’s your go-to plan.
Here’s another option, more inline with Lomborg’s idea: as the result of an extensive project, my niece is presenting a plan in her high school today of how to improve the lives of rural people in Malawi by supplying clean water using local labor and local technology. Each proposal in the class will be judged, and a best project will be determined. It’s a dry run this year, but the Gates Foundation has already promised $30 million to the best project from next year’s class.
- Captain Midnight | 02/11/2013 @ 14:08mkfreeberg: Item by item is not sufficient, then.
Most of which was just repeating your original contention. We responded here:
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 15:02http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/interception/#comment-18271
Your response is, for the most part, a bunch of hagiographies and homilies. They do a splendid job of making the scientists look like saints, good guys who are only to be venerated, whose flaws are never to be noticed. They don’t specifically refudiate what I had to say. In fact they do a great job of substantiating my earlier point: This thing about “You have to yet to respond in any substantive manner” is nothing more than a reprise, like a musical reprise. There is nothing meaningful to it at all, no connection to reality. Pressed to provide justification for it, you say “We responded here” which is entirely different from saying “there is nothing substantive to it”; in fact, if there really isn’t anything substantive to it, it should not have been possible to respond.
So my theory is being supported still. We have the real science, in which the theories are tailored to conform with the reality and the evidence of the reality; then we have the faux-science, in which reality is whittled down, like a block of marble into a horse, to comport with the theory. Positive and negative. Yes, like all good theories subject to a true scientific method, this one seems to gather strength and detail each time it is tested.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 16:02Captain Midnight: And putting in place some carbon tax or cap and trade system will require, all together now, class, a centrally controlled response.
There has to be coordinated international action, just as it took coordinated action on the national level to address conventional pollution.
Captain Midnight: Your response is to point to the scientists. I respond that it’s not them, but *your* use of absolute language that was the point.
The example you chose was predicated with “the scientific evidence indicates”. Not sure why you are having troubles with this.
Captain Midnight: “We have top men working on it now.” “Who?” “Top… Men.” So I should just shut up now because you ask whether scientists are looking into it, I guess. This is an appeal to authority.
No, it’s an appeal to the evidence. We’ve asked you, repeatedly, to look at the evidence. So we ask you again, do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to independently and empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity?
(You cited Meyer who claimed scientists were just making up numbers to plug into their models. But that was false, wasn’t it? Scientists aren’t just making up numbers. They are collecting evidence to support values for climate sensitivity and for the effects of aerosols.)
Captain Midnight: Your second image shows a significant reduction of aerosols in the southern hemisphere, so there should be an increase in temperatures there.
We already responded to this. The Southern Hemisphere has much larger oceans. In addition, the reduction of insolation in Asia is largely offset by increases of insolation in Europe.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/f/n/clearsky1.gif
Captain Midnight: Increased costs would get passed down to the consumers.
Of course.
Captain Midnight: And the increased cost would result in less money and power for the people.
Just like when factories and power plants had to stop spewing conventional pollution. There was and is a cost, but there are costs associated with inaction as well.
Captain Midnight: I’m talking to someone who believes in anthropogenic climate change, and I’m discussing the resulting decrease in people’s wealth because of your reaction to it.
People don’t want to foul their nests for short term gains. They want to build a sustainable future for their children.
Captain Midnight: Each time you are willing to lower people’s standard of living by taking from them their present wealth for the promise that 80-100 years from now the climate will be a fraction of a degree cooler because of it.
You say you are addressing the question, arguendo, as if the vast majority of scientists are right about climate change, then you slip back into handwaving mode.
The science indicates a strong probability that significant anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and that this will cause widespread disruptions of human civilization, and that the associated costs due to warming will be greater than the costs of prudent action to limit the damage.
Captain Midnight: I find Bjorn Lomborg’s position to be the most logical and ethical: do the most good for the most people with the money we have.
Turns out you can work on the problem of clean drinking water while also addressing climate change. Indeed, climate change is expected to exacerbate drought in many areas of the world, so, as the Gates Foundation notes, the two issues are related.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 16:37mkfreeberg: They do a splendid job of making the scientists look like saints, good guys who are only to be venerated, whose flaws are never to be noticed.
Scientists have many flaws, including subjective biases. That’s why humans developed the scientific method, an iterative process of hypothesis, prediction, observation, and verification. And the crosschecking is not just within a field, but valid scientific fields overlap with many other fields.
As we said this already, it’s hard to see why you are still confused. It’s your choice, but readers can see for themselves that you have continued to ignore our points.
mkfreeberg: We have the real science, in which the theories are tailored to conform with the reality and the evidence of the reality; then we have the faux-science, in which reality is whittled down, like a block of marble into a horse, to comport with the theory.
Climate science is a valid scientific field that overlaps other valid scientific fields. Of course, the only way to know that is to look at climate science, something you have refused to do. You could start with the basics of the greenhouse effect.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 17:53Hmmm…you ignore things that are present, and you pretend things are there, that are provably absent.
Other than those two minor flaws, your comments are perfect.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 18:08mkfreeberg: Other than those two minor flaws, your comments are perfect.
Well, the way to determine whether climate science is a valid scientific field is to look at the purported evidence and the related claims. You could start with the basics of the greenhouse effect.
- Zachriel | 02/11/2013 @ 18:12It’s already been established that this faux-science arrives at its conclusions not by accumulating additional knowledge, but by discarding knowledge. It is a subtractive process rather than an additive one. By representing it, and sticking to your tired homilies of “You haven’t provided adequate justification for the things you say, although we can’t define how you’ve fallen short exactly, but we will throw footnote rainbows at you until we catch you making a mistake and then crow in victory” — you’ve proven this multiple times.
“…the only way to know that is to look at climate science, something you have refused to do…” That is a fabrication. What I’ve refused to do, is assist in the hijacking of real science.
- mkfreeberg | 02/11/2013 @ 18:17Now you’re just repeating yourself, Z, confirming my view that you got nothin’. Just a lot of words you’ve learned to repeat. Why do you spend this kind of time, I wonder? It’s hard to imagine you really care about something you don’t fully understand.
- Texan99 | 02/11/2013 @ 21:19[…] Zachriel objected to my noticing that science was being hijacked, and we had this […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/12/2013 @ 04:24[…] Zachriel objected to my noticing that science was being hijacked, and we had this […]
- I Made a New Word LXII | Rotten Chestnuts | 02/12/2013 @ 04:46mkfreeberg: It’s already been established that this faux-science arrives at its conclusions not by accumulating additional knowledge, but by discarding knowledge.
Geez. That’s your definition, not a determination.
Texan99: Now you’re just repeating yourself, Z, confirming my view that you got nothin’. Just a lot of words you’ve learned to repeat.
Then it should be easy to show our readers why those words misrepresent the facts. Your last comment on the thread was a quote-mine.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 05:15Yes, it was surprisingly easy. I was on several sites yesterday that made some of the points you keep avoiding. Some of them were persuasive enough to send me off looking for more information. I don’t know why you can’t do that, too, unless it’s that you just don’t understand your subject as well as they do.
- Texan99 | 02/12/2013 @ 06:58Captain Midnight: And putting in place some carbon tax or cap and trade system will require, all together now, class, a centrally controlled response.
Zachriel There has to be coordinated international action, just as it took coordinated action on the national level to address conventional pollution.
Thank you for acknowledging my point.
Captain Midnight: Your response is to point to the scientists. I respond that it’s not them, but *your* use of absolute language that was the point.
Zachriel The example you chose was predicated with “the scientific evidence indicates”. Not sure why you are having troubles with this.
And the results of the scientific evidence is passed through the Zachriel filter and is stated as absolutes, definites, and concrete future occurrences. Not sure why you are having troubles with this.
Captain Midnight: “We have top men working on it now.” “Who?” “Top… Men.” So I should just shut up now because you ask whether scientists are looking into it, I guess. This is an appeal to authority.
Zachriel No, it’s an appeal to the evidence. We’ve asked you, repeatedly, to look at the evidence. So we ask you again, do you think that, if we did a literature review, we would find scientists attempting to independently and empirically determine the effects of aerosols and climate sensitivity?
Yep, top men are working on it. But the fact that people are studying aerosols doesn’t contradict the inherent problem of aerosols being the explanation for current temperature trends.
Zachriel (You cited Meyer who claimed scientists were just making up numbers to plug into their models. But that was false, wasn’t it? Scientists aren’t just making up numbers. They are collecting evidence to support values for climate sensitivity and for the effects of aerosols.)
You are missing the point. Meyer isn’t saying that all scientists just pull numbers our of the air, but in regards to a specific chart in a specific IPCC report showing current temperature changes and a guess of what Earth’s temperature would be if man were not involved. And we know that their numbers are spot on and completely accurate because top men are working on it.
Captain Midnight: Your second image shows a significant reduction of aerosols in the southern hemisphere, so there should be an increase in temperatures there.
Zachriel We already responded to this. The Southern Hemisphere has much larger oceans.
But your response of “lookie-here, oceans!” doesn’t work. The second graph shows that cooling aerosols in the southern hemisphere were reduced from their 1950-80s levels in the lower 1980-2000 time period. So with fewer aerosols to block the sun, the southern hemisphere should be warming up. But this last decade has seen a cooling trend in the southern hemisphere.
Captain Midnight: And the increased cost would result in less money and power for the people.
Zachriel Just like when factories and power plants had to stop spewing conventional pollution. There was and is a cost, but there are costs associated with inaction as well.
So the need to combat climate change by increasing the cost of energy is the plan. Thanks for making that clear.
Captain Midnight: Each time you are willing to lower people’s standard of living by taking from them their present wealth for the promise that 80-100 years from now the climate will be a fraction of a degree cooler because of it.
Zachriel You say you are addressing the question, arguendo, as if the vast majority of scientists are right about climate change, then you slip back into handwaving mode.
Yep. It’s handwaving when I point out you your willingness to reduce people’s standard of living today.
Zachriel The science indicates a strong probability that significant anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and that this will cause widespread disruptions of human civilization, and that the associated costs due to warming will be greater than the costs of prudent action to limit the damage.
Lemme quote Lomborg’s response to President Obama’s inaugural address:
An annual spending of $250 billion to achieve a reduction of 1/10th of a degree. Sounds like a good use of money. Forward!
Captain Midnight: I find Bjorn Lomborg’s position to be the most logical and ethical: do the most good for the most people with the money we have.
Zachriel Turns out you can work on the problem of clean drinking water while also addressing climate change. Indeed, climate change is expected to exacerbate drought in many areas of the world, so, as the Gates Foundation notes, the two issues are related.
Again I quote from Lomborg’s response to Pres. Obama:
Besides, the issue my niece is putting forward is a solution for providing *clean* water, not to ameliorate the lack of water. If we take the EU’s $250 billion annually and imagine a world where every nation is also contributing billions into the same goal, there’s the conceivable small decreases in global temperatures in 2100. And I’m sure the people in 2100 would be glad that their life is a fraction of a degree cooler, but this would be at the cost of not providing nutrients to malnutritioned kids, or DDT-coated mosquito netting, or pumps to bring up clean water from wells rather than going to streams.
Every time money is spent, there is an opportunity cost associated with it: that item/service that you would have purchased if you hadn’t spent the money the way you did. I find the opportunity cost of combating global climate change to be too high, and so do the economists of the Copenhagen Consensus.
- Captain Midnight | 02/12/2013 @ 12:58Captain Midnight: Not sure why you are having troubles with this.
We’re not. All scientific claims are considered tentative, though some facts are “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”
Captain Midnight: Meyer isn’t saying that all scientists just pull numbers our of the air, but in regards to a specific chart in a specific IPCC report showing current temperature changes and a guess of what Earth’s temperature would be if man were not involved.
That’s exactly what he’s saying. “So the only way to fix this is with what modelers call a plug. Create some new variable, in this case ‘the hypothetical temperature changes without manmade CO2,’ and plug it in. By making this number very negative in the past, but flat to positive in the future, one can have a forecast that rises slowly in the past but rapidly in the future.”
Captain Midnight: But this last decade has seen a cooling trend in the southern hemisphere.
The overall trend is warming, and the oceanic heat content has increased.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT4%20MAATand3yrAverage%20SH%20NormalisedFor1979-1988.gif
Captain Midnight: So the need to combat climate change by increasing the cost of energy is the plan.
You have to gradually increase the cost of energy derived from greenhouse emissions to reflect their true cost. This will move people to reduce greenhouse emissions through normal market pressures.
Captain Midnight: It’s handwaving when I point out you your willingness to reduce people’s standard of living today.</i.
That's right. It costs money to produce electricity from coal without spewing particulates, for instance, or to run a chemical plant without dumping wastes into the stream. Yes, it costs money.
Captain Midnight: An annual spending of $250 billion to achieve a reduction of 1/10th of a degree. Sounds like a good use of money.
Heh. You’re probably referring to Lomborg’s proposed climate tax (presumably on carbon), not the expense of conversion. And that money could be spent on providing clean water for poor people, as well as investment in green technology.
Captain Midnight: Every time money is spent, there is an opportunity cost associated with it
We agree.
Captain Midnight: I find the opportunity cost of combating global climate change to be too high, and so do the economists of the Copenhagen Consensus.
That’s not Copenhagen’s position. Rather, they state that “global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive.” That is our position as well. They further state “The experts expressed an interest in an alternative, proposed in one of the opponent papers, that envisaged a carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation than the figures called for in the challenge paper, rising gradually in
later years.”
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=Files%2fFiler%2fCC%2fPress%2fUK%2fcopenhagen_consensus_result_FINAL.pdf
The movement towards a new energy economy has to be sure but measured. If you like, the world should leverage its carbon economy to effect the transition.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 13:40Moderation queue, please.
- Zachriel | 02/12/2013 @ 17:48“You have to gradually increase the cost of energy derived from greenhouse emissions to reflect their true cost. This will move people to reduce greenhouse emissions through normal market pressures.”
When people start talking about “true costs” that central planners will implement, and in the same breath about normal market pressures,” I know the conversation has veered into economic craziness. What you’re talking about is more like the Windfall Profits Tax than like a market mechanism. Yes, the market will acknowledge and reflect the burden of taxes or regulation, but that doesn’t mean that you can tax or regulate yourself to the benefits of efficiency of a free market. That’s not to say that the government doesn’t sometimes have to burden the free market in order to pay for its activities (see national defense), but we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking we’re not eating into our economic prosperity whenever we do it. That’s a form of the “Oh, it won’t really cost anything” fallacy: you’re just hiding the cost. It’s still necessary to think carefully about whether the cost is greater than the benefit, and the more you play games with hiding the cost, the harder that is.
“The movement towards a new energy economy has to be sure but measured. If you like, the world should leverage its carbon economy to effect the transition.”
If that sentence has any semantic content at all, it means that we should carve a slice out of the wealth that our energy economy now produces and spend it on combatting global warming. In other words, it fails to advance the discussion in any way, as is usually the case with sentences employing the metaphor of “leverage.” These days, everyone who’s ever read a story about high finance thinks he understands how to make a killing using “leverage,” but the word really just means “borrowing” and connotes a deal structure in which one person’s potential upside is large in comparison to the assets he is putting at risk, meaning that the risk has been shifted to someone else in the deal (who’s usually not paying close enough attention).
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 06:25Texan99: When people start talking about “true costs” that central planners will implement, and in the same breath about normal market pressures,” I know the conversation has veered into economic craziness.
If pollution is taxed, then people will work to find ways to reduce their pollution. Those businesses which are most efficient at producing while limiting pollution will have a competitive advantage.
Texan99: Yes, the market will acknowledge and reflect the burden of taxes or regulation, but that doesn’t mean that you can tax or regulate yourself to the benefits of efficiency of a free market.
Huh? The free market has its own benefits. Taxes skew the market, whether income taxes, property taxes, or whatever. However, skewing doesn’t not necessarily mean breaking.
Texan99: That’s not to say that the government doesn’t sometimes have to burden the free market in order to pay for its activities (see national defense), but we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking we’re not eating into our economic prosperity whenever we do it.
In a simplistic analysis, sure. Nor have we said there wouldn’t be a cost involved. Carbon emitters aren’t currently paying for their cleanup costs. You seem to have retreated into right wing polemics.
Zachriel: If you like, the world should leverage its carbon economy to effect the transition.”
Texan99: If that sentence has any semantic content at all, it means that we should carve a slice out of the wealth that our energy economy now produces and spend it on combatting global warming.
Sure. It means spending money, one way or another. But it will cost less in the long run than unchecked climate change.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:01“But it will cost less in the long run than unchecked climate change.”
We’re back to that unsupported claim, are we?
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 07:10Texan99: We’re back to that unsupported claim, are we?
There is a lot of research on cost-benefit analysis of climate change and various policy options. Here’s one, one you promised to read, way up there↑
Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet: “adapting to climate change is very likely a cost-effective investment in almost all cases and should be central to any climate change policy”
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:24http://daraint.org/climate-vulnerability-monitor/climate-vulnerability-monitor-2012/
Does government spending have a deleterious effect on the climate?
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 07:24Captain Midnight also provided a citation to a more conservative analysis, the Copenhagen Consensus: They state that “global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive.” That is our position as well. They further state “The experts expressed an interest in an alternative, proposed in one of the opponent papers, that envisaged a carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation than the figures called for in the challenge paper, rising gradually in
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:24later years.”
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=Files%2fFiler%2fCC%2fPress%2fUK%2fcopenhagen_consensus_result_FINAL.pdf
mkfreeberg: Does government spending have a deleterious effect on the climate?
Much too vague a question. The problem is too complex for such a simplistic analysis.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:26Well, that’s okay. Your answers are vague too, especially when you provide your “citations.”
I keep hearing human activity has an effect on the climate. Is government activity included in that? Yes or no.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 07:30mkfreeberg: I keep hearing human activity has an effect on the climate. Is government activity included in that? Yes or no.
Human emissions of greenhouse gases have an effect on the climate. Government is one of many human activities that emit greenhouse gases.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:43Then, if we think future events are going to involve negative consequences for us and we have an opportunity to prevent them, and a need to exercise this, a high priority should be placed on reducing government activity. We could start with lowering government’s level of authority, which causes no small measure of conflict. Returning it to its proper constitutional constraints.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 07:48Then we could return government annual disbursements to somewhere around 2007 levels.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 07:49mkfreeberg: Then, if we think future events are going to involve negative consequences for us and we have an opportunity to prevent them, and a need to exercise this, a high priority should be placed on reducing government activity.
That’s just silly. If you reduce the size of government, it may result in a temporary decrease in economic activity, but people will simply move into the private sector. You would lose the benefits of government, while doing nothing to combat climate change.
At least now we know why you resist climate science. It might require some sort of coordinated action. This is much like the fights over air and water pollution, or worker safety. There’s nothing new under the Sun.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 07:54So in order for this “science” — really, as I said before, just politics — to make sense, we have to believe humans lose their harmful effect on the environment, when they go to work for the government, since within that realm their impact on the environment isn’t as bad.
Funny how consistently that works out. We’re all just a big infestation on the world until we work for government.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 07:57mkfreeberg: e have to believe humans lose their harmful effect on the environment, when they go to work for the government, since within that realm their impact on the environment isn’t as bad.
Where did you get that idea? A power that lights a government building has the same source as the power that lights a commercial building. The private workers who poured the concrete to make that building may emit more greenhouse gases than other workers (concrete produces greenhouse gases), but those other workers depend on those workers. Everything is interrelated. Simply cutting or expanding government won’t cut greenhouse gas emissions.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 08:15Maybe I got confused when you said that if people are taxed, they will find ways to reduce their pollution. I just naturally figured, well then if we’re going to find these market based ways of reducing human activity, why not start with government? That’s where human activity has been spiking in the last seven years or so, so I figured that just makes sense.
Now you’re saying “everything is interrelated” so I guess that means, it’s some kind of a fool’s errand to try to reduce human activity in the government? Am I reading that right?
Alright then, does that same principle carry forward outside of government? That the activity will remain more-or-less constant, in spite of your new taxes?
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 08:23“There is a lot of research on cost-benefit analysis of climate change and various policy options. Here’s one, one you promised to read, way up there↑
Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of A Hot Planet: “adapting to climate change is very likely a cost-effective investment in almost all cases and should be central to any climate change policy””
Is it your view that the link leads to an attempt to quantity the costs of CO2 reduction and compare them to the costs of warming? The first thing I read there was the preposterous statement that “climate change” is now “a leading global cause of death.” There’s an interactive map that tries to estimate the costs of warming. I didn’t see anything about the costs of remedial action.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 08:24mkfreeberg: Maybe I got confused when you said that if people are taxed, they will find ways to reduce their pollution.
Not just taxed, but taxed on carbon emissions.
mkfreeberg: Now you’re saying “everything is interrelated” so I guess that means, it’s some kind of a fool’s errand to try to reduce human activity in the government?
Governments also have to reduce their emissions, while investing in new technologies.
mkfreeberg: That the activity will remain more-or-less constant, in spite of your new taxes?
Taxes tend to reduce economic activity, but it’s possible for carbon taxes to be revenue neutral. There’s always going to be some dislocation, though, as some businesses will not be able to compete in the new environment.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 09:00If you reduce the size of government, it may result in a temporary decrease in economic activity, but people will simply move into the private sector. I put that one in the win-win category.
At least now we know why you resist climate science. It might require some sort of coordinated action.” You are aware, I suppose, that many skeptics have the reciprocal concern? That the explanation for the weak explanations of problems with warming theory is confirmation bias, and that the specific form of bias is a desire for an excuse to implement command-control economic policies?
“We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
“The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”
“For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”
“[O]ne has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth . . . .”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/
Yes, I know you’ve been saying that the speaker’s state of mind doesn’t matter, only whether the science holds up, but you wanted to talk about Morgan’s state of mind instead of the logical points he’s raising.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 09:04There’s always going to be some dislocation, though, as some businesses will not be able to compete in the new environment.
Yeah, I just so happened to have Atlas Shrugged open as I was reading your comment. On page 502…
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 09:09Texan99: I put that one in the win-win category.
That depends on what is cut. For instance, if you cut pollution controls, then pollution will increase. The majority of Americans consider clean air and water a positive good provided by government regulation.
Texan99: You are aware, I suppose, that many skeptics have the reciprocal concern? That the explanation for the weak explanations of problems with warming theory is confirmation bias, and that the specific form of bias is a desire for an excuse to implement command-control economic policies?
Yes, but none of the skeptics can provide scientific support for their views. The problem of centralization is a legitimate question, one that needs to be addressed, however, denying that humans are changing the climate to their detriment is no longer a defencible position. There just isn’t any supporting evidence.
Texan99: Yes, I know you’ve been saying that the speaker’s state of mind doesn’t matter, only whether the science holds up, but you wanted to talk about Morgan’s state of mind instead of the logical points he’s raising.
Couldn’t care less other than we hope he is happy and contented in life.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 09:11Currently not taxed on my carbon. Wanting to keep it that way.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 09:13mkfreeberg: Currently not taxed on my carbon. Wanting to keep it that way.
That’s fine. Just don’t dump it into the atmosphere you share with others. Problem solved.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 09:31Yes, but none of the skeptics can provide scientific support for their views.
We’re back to your problem of looking at only one side of the dispute. It’s possible to conclude that there are two sides, of which one is more convincing. That’s what a scientist does. But only a partisan says there is only one side, and no evidence at all on the other. The only way to reach that conclusion is to refuse to look at anything that might make you feel doubt.
And that’s how you get people who are supposed to be respectable scientists saying things like:
“If you think that [Yale professor James] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official [American Geophysical Union] channels to get him ousted [as editor-in-chief of the Geophysical Research Letters journal].”
“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL . . . I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.”
“I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc…If published as is, this paper could really do some damage…It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically… I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review—Confidentially, I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”
“Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 09:36That’s fine. Just don’t dump it into the atmosphere you share with others. It’s a deal! As soon as you stop exhaling.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 09:38That’s fine. Just don’t dump it into the atmosphere you share with others. Problem solved.
And if I do, that’s probably alright too.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 09:56Texan99: We’re back to your problem of looking at only one side of the dispute. It’s possible to conclude that there are two sides, of which one is more convincing. That’s what a scientist does.
Nothing unusual about scientists who are biased. Old as Galileo.
Texan99: But only a partisan says there is only one side, and no evidence at all on the other.
Eppur si muove.
Texan99: It’s a deal! As soon as you stop exhaling.
Respiration is carbon-neutral.
mkfreeberg: And if I do, that’s probably alright too.
Others who share your atmosphere may disagree.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 09:58Eppur si muove. It’s your understanding that Galileo could reach the conclusion that the Earth orbits the Sun only by disregarding a mass of evidence that proved the opposite? He didn’t simply pretend not to notice that, from the point of view of a man standing on the ground, the Sun appeared to move while he himself had no sensation of movement. Galileo acknowledged that data, together with observations of the movements of the planets, and explained how it could all be accounted for more elegantly, comprehensively, and persuasively by his own theory. It was the Church fathers who couldn’t bear to examine his data or explanations, because they so upset their preconceptions.
If Galileo had taken the “see no evil” approach, he would have persuaded fewer people to his point of view. Which shows not only that he was a good scientist but that an essential honesty and integrity will make your ideas more powerful in the long run.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 10:44Texan99: It’s your understanding that Galileo could reach the conclusion that the Earth orbits the Sun only by disregarding a mass of evidence that proved the opposite?
Galileo had his blind spots. He was biased, and it affected his science. Furthermore, he was arrogant and publicly ridiculed those who disagreed with him. He was so sure of his conclusions that he published a fallacious treatise on tides that supposedly proved the Earth’s movement. So saying that scientists are biased isn’t news. Science does not depend on the modesty of scientists.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 11:26Texan99: But only a partisan says there is only one side, and no evidence at all on the other.
Zachriel: Eppur si muove.
Texan99: It’s your understanding that Galileo could reach the conclusion that the Earth orbits the Sun only by disregarding a mass of evidence that proved the opposite?
As with Galileo, climate scientists have responded to criticisms. However, the fundamental findings of the anthropogenic climate change, and of the Earth’s movement, are such that there are few criticisms left except on tangential issues.
Eppure si riscalda.
But we’re open to looking at any evidence you present.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 11:34Science does not depend on the modesty of scientists. Of course not. Aren’t you confusing honesty with modesty? Science does depend to a significant degree on the honesty of scientists, though luckily we have a number of more or less effective methods of detecting and correcting dishonesty. However, when we have evidence of dishonesty, we actually have to employ those methods, not just say “Well, there will always be some dishonest scientists, but science will survive.”
As with Galileo, climate scientists have responded to criticisms. However, the fundamental findings of the anthropogenic climate change, and of the Earth’s movement, are such that there are few criticisms left except on tangential issues.
Eppure si riscalda.
But we’re open to looking at any evidence you present.
You’re reverting again to vague generalizations and insistent repetition of ultimate conclusions.
If you’re being subjected to house arrest for a heretical belief in warming, it makes sense to mutter resentfully to your captors “eppure si riscalda.” That’s as much as to say, “I’ve failed to convince you, but all your institutional power can never change my private opinion.” That would express a stubborn mental persistence, which will come in handy if you find yourself being tortured to recant, but it won’t get you votes for trillions of dollars in funding unless you can respond to criticism. (And I mean respond other than by repeating catch-phrases.)
I’m glad to hear you’re open to looking at any evidence I present, but you’re already ignored the evidence I presented, choosing instead to cherry-pick the parts you agreed with and to ignore the parts that shed doubt on your positions. (And by ignore, I don’t mean “quote and refute,” I mean “fail to acknowledge at all.”) I’ve tried to post some additional links to evidence, but they’re in the moderation queue, so I’m afraid we’ll both have to be patient. Here’s one, in case the problem is my attempt to include more than one link at a time: http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolarHYPERLINK
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 12:17I’m trying to moderate as fast as I can. The moderation queue is currently empty. Do let me know if I’ve missed something and I’ll jump on it with all the agility my old bones can muster. Goes for everybody.
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 12:31Bummer. It disappeared somehow. Everyone will have to take my word that it was brilliant and devastating.
Actually, I linked to several articles raising cogent objections to particular problems with the warmist thesis, particularly involving assumptions about climate sensitivity. I’ll link them again, but only one per comment:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/new-climate-sho.html (evidence that the climate is dominated by strong positive feedbacks is weak)
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 12:41http://www.sciencebits.com/OnClimateSensitivity (empirical estimates of climate sensitivity yield a relatively low value that corresponds to a net cancelation of various positive and negative feedbacks)
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 12:43I just approved one from you a few minutes ago that was chock full of links. Is that the one you’re talking about? Are you sure it’s not there? You may have to hit refresh…
- mkfreeberg | 02/13/2013 @ 12:48http://www.sciencebits.com/IPCC_nowarming (similar article by the same author as above, but less formal)
It would be great if we could hear responses to these articles on the substance instead of a little credentialism brush fire, since Z has established his view that it’s the content that matters, not the personalities or even the reliability of the credentializing system.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 12:49‘s OK. I recreated.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 12:51Captain Midnight: I find the opportunity cost of combating global climate change to be too high, and so do the economists of the Copenhagen Consensus.
Zachriel That’s not Copenhagen’s position. Rather, they state that “global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive.” That is our position as well. They further state “The experts expressed an interest in an alternative, proposed in one of the opponent papers, that envisaged a carbon tax much lower in the first years of implementation than the figures called for in the challenge paper, rising gradually in later years.”
A quick comment before I’m off to the airport and beyond reliable internet for a good while. You have twice quoted this chunk from the Copenhagen Consensus, but you’ve done an interesting bit of editing. Here’s the full paragraph:
That bolded part is key: costs greater than benefits. To summarize the conference, the economic panel was given the question of how to best spend $50 billion to help people. They then ranked the following proposals after weighing their costs and benefits. Here’s a crude text representation of their rankings.
Project rating – Challenge – Opportunity
Very Good
1 Diseases – Control of HIV/AIDS
2 Malnutrition – Providing micro nutrients
3 Subsidies and Trade – Trade liberalisation
4 Diseases – Control of malaria
Good
5 Malnutrition – Development of new agricultural technologies
6 Sanitation & Water – Small-scale water technology for livelihoods
7 Sanitation & Water – Community-managed water supply and sanitation
8 Sanitation & Water – Research on water productivity in food production
Fair
9 Government – Lowering the cost of starting a new business
10 Migration – Lowering barriers to migration for skilled workers
11 Malnutrition – Improving infant and child nutrition
12 Malnutrition – Reducing the prevalence of low birth weight
Poor
13 Diseases – Scaled-up basic health services
14 Migration – Guest worker programmes for the unskilled
15 Climate – Optimal carbon tax
16 Climate – The Kyoto Protocol
17 Climate – Value-at-risk carbon tax
Notice that the three climate projects (carbon tax, carbon reduction, carbon tax) are at the bottom since they have the least benefit for their costs. If the purpose is to benefit the most people with the specified funds, then it makes economic sense to spend the money in a way that will benefit the most people and produce the biggest bang for the buck. To purposely choose the climate options at the bottom of the lists seems to indicate a problem with understanding economics or an agenda driven by some purpose other than helping the most people in the best way.
To sum up: the Copenhagen Consensus supports my claim that the “opportunity cost of combating global climate change to be too high.” Sending money on any of the poor climate projects at the bottom comes with the greater opportunity cost of not funding the very good projects at the top.
- Captain Midnight | 02/13/2013 @ 13:28Texan99: Aren’t you confusing honesty with modesty?
Not at all. You commented about scientists not liking a paper and wanting to keep it from being published. It’s common in so-called skeptic movements to use publication as vindication. Are you claiming there is evidence of fraud? And who has been fired or prosecuted?
We responded to your links on the other thread.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 13:34Texan99: Everyone will have to take my word that it was brilliant and devastating.
While we disagree with your position on climate science, we will take your word for it. If your grandchildren ask, it was brilliant and devastating, though, sadly, lost forever to the ages.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 13:36Captain Midnight: To sum up: the Copenhagen Consensus supports my claim that the “opportunity cost of combating global climate change to be too high.”
That is incorrect. They concluded:
1. global warming must be addressed
2. abrupt strategies are needlessly expensive
3. they were interested in a gradual approach (not studied in detail)
4. urged increased funding for research into more affordable carbon-abatement technologies
In other words, they do not conclude the opportunity costs to be too high, but that better policies need to be proposed, probably on the line of a carbon tax that starts small and increases over time.
This is our position, as well. A gradual transition allows time for businesses to adjust, new technologies to mature, and for adjustments to be made as the process goes along.
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 13:44The panel looked at three proposals, including the Kyoto Protocol, for dealing with climate change by reducing emissions of carbon. The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits. Then they talked about the possibility of coming up with something else at some point, where the cost wouldn’t exceed the benefit. No one has come up with such a thing yet. You have not pointed us to any such thing. What’s the controversy? I don’t think anyone here is claiming that it’s theoretically impossible that anyone anywhere will dream up a cost-effective proposal. If and when that happens, those of us who believe the cost-benefit analysis can vote to fund it. But who would vote to fund an analysis when its proponents admit up front that it’s not cost-effective? Even if we know they’re still hard at work trying to think of something better?
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 14:12“Q: Aren’t you confusion honesty with modesty? A: Not at all. You commented about scientists not liking a paper and wanting to keep it from being published. It’s common in so-called skeptic movements to use publication as vindication. Are you claiming there is evidence of fraud? And who has been fired or prosecuted?
I argued that Galileo did not ignore contrary evidence; i.e., he was honest. You responded that he was arrogant and that science does not depend on the modesty of scientists. I merely wondered what you thought the connection was.
I commented on scientists suppressing publication of papers that contradicted their pet theories. Your answer is that skeptics like to use publication as vindication? What’s your point? Warmists are so determined to deny them “vindication” that they’ll suppress a paper they privately admit is hard to criticize on theoretical grounds? I suspect you’re right, but doesn’t that rather support my position better than yours?
Am I claiming there is fraud or that anyone has been fired or prosecuted? Well, I’m not sure about fraud in the legal sense, but certainly dishonesty, as I have explained. I haven’t mentioned firings or prosecutions and am not sure what your point is. If I were in charge of a government agency or research foundation, you’d better believe I’d fire every single author of the quotations I posted. You wouldn’t? These are your idea of professional standards?
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 14:19Texan99: Then they talked about the possibility of coming up with something else at some point, where the cost wouldn’t exceed the benefit. No one has come up with such a thing yet.
As the report suggested, a gradual phase-in of a carbon tax. Also, keep in mind that Copenhagen was a conservative group. Other research has shown a higher benefit-to-cost. There’s still a lot of uncertainty in how quickly the energy economy can be revamped while still allowing continued development.
Texan99: I argued that Galileo did not ignore contrary evidence; i.e., he was honest.
Galileo was right more often than not, but when he was wrong, it was because he ignored contrary evidence.
Texan99: Warmists are so determined to deny them “vindication” that they’ll suppress a paper they privately admit is hard to criticize on theoretical grounds?
The same thing happens in evolutionary biology. So-called skeptics publish in out-of-the-way journals, and then trump this as evidence that they are being taken seriously. Per your own citation from earlier, the only real controversy is political and cultural, hence, publication is propaganda, not science.
Texan99: I suspect you’re right, but doesn’t that rather support my position better than yours?
Did you accuse someone of fraud? Or simply being arrogant and narrow-minded?
Texan99: If I were in charge of a government agency or research foundation, you’d better believe I’d fire every single author of the quotations I posted. You wouldn’t? These are your idea of professional standards?
What? For calling their critics simpletons? And trashing-talking their papers?
- Zachriel | 02/13/2013 @ 15:47As the report suggested, a gradual phase-in of a carbon tax. Also, keep in mind that Copenhagen was a conservative group. Other research has shown a higher benefit-to-cost. There’s still a lot of uncertainty in how quickly the energy economy can be revamped while still allowing continued development. Right. As I said, a possibility of some other amelioration plan that would cost less than its benefit. Let us know when it comes into existence and we can talk. If there’s one out there already, we’ve asked you for a citation to it numerous times. “A gradual phase-in of a carbon tax” is not a solution that anyone has even remotely demonstrated to be cost-effective.
Galileo was right more often than not, but when he was wrong, it was because he ignored contrary evidence. Then it should be clear to you why that’s a very bad idea. Why emulate Galileo at his most faulty?
The same thing happens in evolutionary biology. So-called skeptics publish in out-of-the-way journals, and then trump this as evidence that they are being taken seriously. Per your own citation from earlier, the only real controversy is political and cultural, hence, publication is propaganda, not science. I have never asserted that the problem is a ghettoization of skeptics in out-of-the-way journals, or the emotional impact this may have on published skeptics. My complaint is your refusal to confront evidence that does not confirm your views, no matter where it may be published. I was pleased that you made an attempt to wrestle with the facts and arguments in one of the links I posted about sensitivity. You mostly stuck to the subject, addressed some of the issues on their own merits, and reverted only partially to the cry of “All the best people disagree with that.”
I’m not sure what you mean by a citation from me asserting that the only real controversy is political and cultural. It’s certainly true that a lot of the discussion of anti-warming amelioration belongs in those arenas, but that doesn’t mean there is no scientific dispute. It only means that it’s not a good idea to lean on your scientific conclusions to support costly proposals that lack economic support (such as amelioration schemes that are not cost-effective).
Did you accuse someone of fraud? Or simply being arrogant and narrow-minded? As I said, I accused several people of dishonesty, on the basis of their own written admissions. “Fraud” has a specific legal meaning, though in common talk it’s often used as a synonym for dishonesty — as in, “That proposed medical treatment is a fraud.” I don’t know or care whether they met the legal standard for fraud. My concern is about their admitted dishonesty. I don’t want a money judgment against them, or a jail term. I want to know whether anyone should ever again trust a word they say in an important intellectual dispute with serious political and economic consequences.
What? [Fire them] [f]or calling their critics simpletons? And trashing-talking their papers? I had in mind instead firing them for professional dishonesty. I have no objection to calling people simpletons or trash-talking them when they have their heads up their butts, as this long exchange has proved. They should thunder away at each other in journals and on panels. I do, however, believe people should be fired from government posts and research foundations if they are caught suppressing research they acknowledge to be logically unassailable, because it might threaten their pet theories or their pet political projects. A self-respecting chairman would fire them or, if he were prevented from doing so, resign himself, if he cared at all about his organization’s reputation for probity.
- Texan99 | 02/13/2013 @ 17:33Texan99: As I said, a possibility of some other amelioration plan that would cost less than its benefit. Let us know when it comes into existence and we can talk.
We’ve provided citations. The DARA report shows that the cost of inaction to be about 4% of global GDP, but that moderate action results in a net benefit of 1% of global GDP. You might have to follow the footnotes.
The citation to the conservative Copenhagen consensus provided by Captain Midnight, concluded 1. global warming must be addressed; 2. abrupt strategies are needlessly expensive; 3. they were interested in a gradual approach (not studied in detail); 4. urged increased funding for research into more affordable carbon-abatement technologies.
There’s also a wealth of information in the IPCC reports, and studies in many economic journals. Part of the problem is that estimates of climate change and costs are uncertain, which is not to say there is no knowledge, but that there is a range of plausible values. Another problem is the cross-disciplinary aspect of the problem. Here is an new study that attempts to bridge the gap: Rogelj et al., Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation, Nature 2012.
Of course, if you deny the problem climate change poses to human prosperity, then none of this is relevant. That’s why you have to start with climate science.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 06:18Of course, if you deny the problem climate change poses to human prosperity, then none of this is relevant. That’s why you have to start with climate science.
You have it backwards. I don’t even get to the question of whether you’re right in a series of speculative projections of disaster, unless you’ve identified a cure that’s not worse than the alleged disease. Until you do, it makes more sense to keep studying the problem and trying to get a better handle on both aspects: is it really going to get bad (and if so, how bad), and is there really anything cost-effective we can do to prevent it (assuming we’re the cause). Unless both of those two problems are solved, we’d do better to get ready to spend some money simply dealing with the serious effects of warming if and when they arrive.
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 07:12Texan99: I don’t even get to the question of whether you’re right in a series of speculative projections of disaster, unless you’ve identified a cure that’s not worse than the alleged disease.
Very odd. You don’t want to know if you are sick so you that can being a search for a cure?
In any case, we’ve provided multiple citations that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that it will impact human civilization. Humans created the problem, so it is quite apparent humans can ameliorate it, and we’ve provided multiple citations concerning that as well.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 07:17If I really thought human civilization was going to be impacted by something caused by humans, and the problem was about to get a lot worse because too many humans fail to achieve awareness or appreciation of the problem, I would not do what you have been doing. At least, when it got to the point of “we’ve provided multiple citations” I wouldn’t just keep pasting the same links and saying “we’ve provided multiple citations” over and over again.
I have come to view these exchanges the same way I view Ed Darrell exchanges: You are not trying to convince us there is a problem, we are not trying to convince you there isn’t. Instead, what is happening here is: You are providing us with information to help settle that long standing problem of “Why do people who make smart decisions in other areas of life, make the stupid decision of supporting liberals?”
And the answer I’m seeing is: Internet gadflies, like you, wear them down by throwing “citations” at them — which are really just nothing more than fluff, there are no specifics “cited” in these citations, they’re links to puffy tomes, always described in glowing terms, with an implied but unstated promise that there is some gem in there, a needle in the haystack waiting for them if they sift long enough. So they say “Oh, screw it” and climb aboard the alwarmist bandwagon, out of no concern greater than avoiding possible embarrassment, personal, vocational or both.
I believe a fairy tale was written about this awhile back, about an Emperor who went marching through the streets naked, and a little boy called him out on it. The point to the story was that there isn’t any limit on how silly these situations can get, and when people think “Well this has gone on awhile and a lot of people are in on it, the Emperor must be wearing invisible clothes because if he was naked, there’s no way this would get out of control” — then, they have become a part of the problem.
I’m seeing other answers too. They have problems with items #8 and #9 from the twenty things that are non-partisan, or darn well should be. Also with #6 and #7.
But perhaps the most important factor that causes people to make a mistake here is, they don’t understand what a brain-shaking body blow has been dealt to climate science by the political forces. It now has to do with “researching” the impact on the climate human activity will have, in a hundred years or so. That is not what the science was supposed to be about, before, and so a lot of these measurements have had to be re-taken, something that isn’t possible with the historical record, and re-calibrated and re-figured. This, we’re told, settles the science “largely” in the favor of the alwarmists…which is the same as saying nothing’s been settled. That word “largely.” It always has to be in there. Yes, some of us notice this, annoyingly.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 07:28mkfreeberg: You are not trying to convince us there is a problem
While we do give you the benefit of the doubt, you are very unlikely to change your mind regardless of the evidence. We post for the benefit of our readers.
mkfreeberg: there are no specifics “cited” in these citations
That’s right, because the most prestigious scientific journals publish nothing but “fluff” with no specifics.
mkfreeberg: This, we’re told, settles the science “largely” in the favor of the alwarmists…which is the same as saying nothing’s been settled. That word “largely.” It always has to be in there. Yes, some of us notice this, annoyingly.
Heh. That’s exactly the opposite complaint we heard earlier. While not all claims are equally plausible, all scientific findings are considered tentative, and there is always some uncertainty. That’s the nature of scientific inquiry.
Eppure si riscalda.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 07:41Eppure [sic] si riscalda ≠ Eppur si muove.
Movement is a continuation. Once an object possessing mass begins moving, the normal expectation is for it to keep moving. For it to stop, would be unnatural and unexpected.
Heating is an acceleration. It isn’t going to happen unless something makes it happen. And, once an object has warmed to a certain temperature, this does not represent a capacity or an inclination for it to warm further.
8. [blank] and [blank] are meaningfully different; what works for one does not necessarily work for the other.
That’s a specific citation. I pointed not just to the thing, but I went into it, zeroed in specifically on the object I’m calling out to your attention, and as an added courtesy, lifted it out and pasted it in here.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 07:49mkfreeberg: Eppure si riscalda ≠ Eppur si muove.
They are parallel statements, not equivalent statements.
http://translate.google.com/?q=eppure
mkfreeberg: Once an object possessing mass begins moving, the normal expectation is for it to keep moving.
That wasn’t a normal expectation before Galileo, of course.
mkfreeberg: Heating is an acceleration. It isn’t going to happen unless something makes it happen. And, once an object has warmed to a certain temperature, this does not represent a capacity or an inclination for it to warm further.
So, from your own argument, we can conclude that something has been causing the Earth to warm over the last century.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 08:08So, from your own argument, we can conclude that something has been causing the Earth to warm over the last century.
Yes, exactly right. But you can’t use that to predict what will happen later. The very phrase “global warming trend” is abject nonsense, just as “Earth mean global temperature.”
Just like the saucepan of water on the stove. Put it on medium, it will warm from room temperature to 180° in about three or four minutes. You cannot then say, give it another four minutes and it will warm to 300°. If heat worked the way movement works, then you could. But you can’t, because the two things are different.
I’ve provided multiple citations…
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 08:15mkfreeberg: Yes, exactly right. But you can’t use that to predict what will happen later.
If you identify the mechanism that has been warming the Earth’s surface, you can then determine whether this “forcing” is likely to continue. The surface is warming while the stratosphere is cooling, which indicates greenhouse warming. So now we just have to examine the atmosphere to determine what has changed over the last century.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 08:28No.
Movement is movement. Heat is an acceleration of movement. Those two are different things.
This is the part where you say “Yes you’re right,” or “Yes that’s right but…” Or else, insist that it isn’t right, and admit that your “proof” has to do with pretending true things are false or that false things are true. One of those three.
Like Dilbert said. This is the part where you agree with me, and then we both get on with our lives. Motion and heat are different.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 08:30mkfreeberg: Heat is an acceleration of movement.
Heat is not movement, but a transfer of energy by thermal interactions. The Earth is always receiving radiant energy from the Sun, then reradiating that energy.
mkfreeberg: Motion and heat are different.
Yes, they are different, yet the Earth’s surface has warmed over the last century. What do you think caused it to warm?
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 08:36Heat is not movement, but a transfer of energy by thermal interactions.
In context, the term “heat” refers to the action of…
Oh, heck. Here, let’s just give you this one, to demonstrate for the benefit of your readers that this pseudo-science is nothing more than the leftist tactic of “concede nothing under any circumstances” writ large. Which is pretending to be science.
When an object’s temperature is increased, what is happening is an acceleration, an increase in the velocity of something. Movement is movement, it is not an increase in anything at all (unless the movement is upward). To equate Eppur si muove with Eppur si riscalda is to conflate a simple concept of physics, with another simple concept of physics, that is different by a whole degree. This is a functional difference, relevant to this search for a trend you seek to intellectually undertake and describe for us as you go along. Er, for your readers.
If you do not concede this point, you are engaged in a process of proving, best case scenario, that good ideas can come from bad thinking. That’s best case. This would be pointless, because we know good ideas can come from good thinking, so why not engage the good thinking and acknowledge that a billiard ball rolling across a table is a different thing from a sauce pan heating up on the stove. Since, you know, they are.
This is the part where you agree with me, and we both get on with our lives.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 09:30mkfreeberg: To equate Eppur si muove with Eppur si riscalda is to conflate a simple concept of physics, with another simple concept of physics, that is different by a whole degree.
We already said they are not equivalent, but parallel constructions. Just as Galileo said “And yet it moves”, we are saying “And yet it warms”. Whatever else is said, the Earth moves. Whatever else is said, the Earth has been warming. What do you think caused it to warm?
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 09:38They aren’t even parallel. Galileo, being placed under house arrest, is more like a global warming skeptic. But let’s not get into that. I’m just trying to get you to acknowledge that as Earth moves through space, it is entirely possible to predict future locations of the Earth, whereas even if it’s accepted that the Earth has warmed and it’s established what the climate sensitivity is and what the carbon saturation and water vapor saturation are going to be at some future date, it is an entirely different matter to predict the temperature. One is a movement at a roughly constant speed, the other is an acceleration in speed. Not the same thing.
You’ve already said I’m not convincing you of anything and you’re not convincing me of anything; this is a study of how leftists deceive people. So let’s see if you will concede this point.
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 09:50Very odd. You don’t want to know if you are sick so you that can being a search for a cure? Sure. If I have disquieting test results, I try to figure out what they mean. What I don’t do is sign up for life-threatening chemo today because it’s possible I’ll develop cancer next year. I especially don’t sign up today for a new treatment that may not even work, but that has a good chance of killing me. Until the picture becomes clearer, my doctor and I may have to continue mulling over the test results until we can come up with a treatment that obeys the dictate “First, do no harm.” That’s cost-benefit analysis.
In any case, we’ve provided multiple citations that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that it will impact human civilization. You’ve got to learn the difference between making a bunch of citations and concluding that you’ve convinced your audience. Your citations are not a persuasive as you imagine, as you’d know if you were less dismissive of the concerns that we raise about them.
Humans created the problem, so it is quite apparent humans can ameliorate it, and we’ve provided multiple citations concerning that as well. It does not at all follow that, if humans can damage it, they can ameliorate it cost-effectively. Is this the approach you take to Yucca Mountain? Your “multiple citations” didn’t include a single example of a quantification of costs that were less than a quantification of benefits. When pressed for details, you always come back to the idea that people are working on it and are going to come up with something later. It may be that the best way for humans to ameliorate global warming is to spend money adjusting to its effects rather than either preventing them or reversing them.
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 09:50mkfreeberg: Not the same thing
Are you saying the Earth’s surface hasn’t warmed over the last century?
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 09:51Texan99: If I have disquieting test results, I try to figure out what they mean. What I don’t do is sign up for life-threatening chemo today because it’s possible I’ll develop cancer next year.
So it is important to whether or not you have cancer.
Texan99: Your “multiple citations” didn’t include a single example of a quantification of costs that were less than a quantification of benefits.
Do you think that this is something scientists and economists might study? Do you think that if we searched the literature, that someone somewhere has studied the problem?
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 09:57So, no. You will not concede this elementary point of physics, something a tenth-grade student should know.
Why then, should we, or your readers, trust what you have to say about things being settled “largely” in favor of prior climate research?
- mkfreeberg | 02/14/2013 @ 09:57That the Earth’s surface has warmed over the last century is as settled as anything in science. That the Earth’s surface has warmed over the last century is something I have taken as a given in these discussions. It’s not enough to support your ultimate conclusions.
Everything is debatable, and everything in science is considered tentative, including the movement of the Earth. Whether a particular position is plausible depends on the evidence. Which is why I remain unconvinced by your repeated conclusory and dogmatic statements, when you can’t break them down into specific packets of facts and arguments. Whether a particular position is plausible depends in large part on whether you can do that.
Would it have affected the results? If not, then it is of little interest to environmental scientists. There’s always other statistical tests, more advanced techniques. That may be of interest to statisticians, but rarely to empirical scientists—unless it changes the results. That’s what the paper needed to explore to be publishable. Strange, then, that that’s not what the author asked for help to do. He asked for help in coming up with excuses to spike a paper whose mathematical lucidity he could not fault. It would have been easy to say, “This isn’t publishable because I’m convinced that this gaping error in our methodology wouldn’t change our results.” He didn’t say that publicly because he’d have been derided. He doesn’t get to make that determination. The scientific community is supposed to decide that his gaping errors were harmless, if that’s possible. That’s honesty.
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 09:57So it is important to {know} whether or not you have cancer.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 09:58So it is important to [know] whether or not you have cancer. Why yes, and my doctor and I should continue researching the problem, think up new tests, etc. We just shouldn’t subject me to a life-threatening treatment until we sort out the costs and benefits. If I have an operable brain tumor, let’s go for it. If my husband has prostate cancer, it’s not so clear. Can we afford to wait? Will the surgery do more harm than good? How sure are we that it’s a fast-growing one? You can’t conflate all those questions with the simple “Don’t you want to know if you have cancer? Don’t you want to treat it with any means available?”
Do you think that [the cost-benefit comparison] is something scientists and economists might study? Do you think that if we searched the literature, that someone somewhere has studied the problem? Of course, and as I understand it, that’s exactly what people are doing. Carry on. What I dispute is that they’ve produced a useful result yet. Not their fault if they haven’t, but it’s premature to commandeer trillions of dollars of global resources until they do. — Unless there’s another strong motive operating, to get started right now on the global redistribution of resources in order to achieve social justice. In that case, we can’t afford to wait even a moment!
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 10:14mkfreeberg: You will not concede this elementary point of physics, something a tenth-grade student should know.
What elementary point of physics? That “heat is an acceleration of movement”? Do you mean warming, the increase in heat energy?
mkfreeberg: Why then, should we, or your readers, trust what you have to say about things being settled “largely” in favor of prior climate research?
The data and method are available in the scientific literature. People can verify it for themselves, or if they are ambitious, they can become climate scientists and do their own research.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 11:11Texan99: Why yes, and my doctor and I should continue researching the problem, think up new tests, etc. We just shouldn’t subject me to a life-threatening treatment until we sort out the costs and benefits.
So the first step, determine if you have cancer, then determine the prognosis, then decide on a course of treatment. So, as we said, first you determine is there is anthropogenic climate change, then determine what if any effects this will entail, then decide on a course of action.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 11:14Likewise, if my doctor tells me that a tests indicates the possibility of cancer, but there’s no known cure (or any cure will be worse than the disease), I’ll say, “Gosh. That’s interesting.” I don’t say, “Here’s a blank check for an experimental treatment that is as likely to hurt as help.” Am I curious to know for sure? Absolutely. But it doesn’t change my unwillingness to sign a blank check.
Some things are important to know, without being the most important thing in the world to know before you make a given decision. Some things that are important to know are not at all “the first step” in that context.
You’ve already decided on a course of action. I think you have the steps in the wrong order. By your own admission, even if you’re 100% about the man-caused warming and its severity over the next century, you’re practically nowhere on the cost-benefit analysis of the proposed cure.
(1) “The earth has warmed over the last 125 years.”
(2) “It’s going to get worse, though by how much we’re not sure.”
(3) “We may be able to prevent some of the deterioration, but we’re not sure how much it will cost.”
(4) ???
(5) “Let’s destroy the economy in case it may help. If we’re wrong, we’ll at least have established social justice by redistributing property.”
Top minds are working on it.
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 11:58Texan99: Likewise, if my doctor tells me that a tests indicates the possibility of cancer, but there’s no known cure (or any cure will be worse than the disease), I’ll say, “Gosh. That’s interesting.”
So the order is diagnosis, prognosis, treatment (if any).
Texan99: (1) “The earth has warmed over the last 125 years.”
That’s right, about 0.8°C. The evidence is that this warming is primarily due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Texan99: (2) “It’s going to get worse, though by how much we’re not sure.”
The evidence indicates a range of 1.5-4.5°C, a most probably value around 3°C, the upper bound least certain.
Texan99: (3) “We may be able to prevent some of the deterioration, but we’re not sure how much it will cost.”
The no policy approach is projected to cost about 4% of global GDP. Depending on the mitigation strategy, the net loss will can be reduced to projected 1% of GDP. This only includes economic costs, but not the value of humanity’s natural inheritance or costs due to political instability.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 13:57So the order is diagnosis, prognosis, treatment (if any). If the only proposed treatment looks worse than the disease, my first concern isn’t to worry about any uncertainty in the diagnosis. I’m going to say, “Even if you’re right, you have nothing useful to suggest.” If my doctor said, “But you have to write me a big check right this instant for the cure that’s worse than the disease, because I presented the information to you in the approved order according to the manual: diagnosis, prognosis treatment,” I’d say, “Are you crazy?”
About my steps (1) through (5): your comment got all the way through the three relatively non-controversial initial points. You stopped dead at the “???” step. You see why that’s a problem?
You’re still not quite getting what it means for a cure to be worse than a disease. You say warming will cost 4% of GDP. You think that some kind of mitigation program can reduce the cost of warming to 1% of GDP. Do you see that you’re missing a step? You don’t have any idea what your mitigation program will cost. You’d have to have some reason to believe that your mitigation program would cost less than 3% of GDP, or you’re not coming out ahead. Can you even balance your checkbook? This is like the 20th time we’ve all tried to explain the concept to you. Some people should never be let near any economic decisions.
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 15:16Texan99: If the only proposed treatment looks worse than the disease, my first concern isn’t to worry about any uncertainty in the diagnosis.
None the less, you still start with the diagnosis.
Texan99: You stopped dead at the “???” step.
That’s funny. Was there a question there or just question marks? We missed #5 for some reason, too.
Texan99: You say warming will cost 4% of GDP.
That’s what economic research indicates.
Texan99: You don’t have any idea what your mitigation program will cost.
Sure, and we’ve pointed you to research and reviews on the subject. Moderate action to reduce the use of carbon will cost about 0.5% of GDP. Try Rogelj et al., “Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation”, Nature 2013. They combine many of the relevant problems and uncertainties, and find that “political choices that delay mitigation have the largest effect on the cost–risk distribution, followed by geophysical uncertainties, social factors influencing future energy demand and, lastly, technological uncertainties surrounding the availability of greenhouse gas mitigation options.”
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 15:45None the less, you still start with the diagnosis. My doctor will, but if he then keeps repeating, “But the diagnosis is first!” after we’ve talked about all the other points I brought up, I’ll think he’s brain-damaged. Nobody could be that dense.
That’s funny. Was there a question there or just question marks? We missed #5 for some reason, too. Refer to above, re denseness.
Moderate action to reduce the use of carbon will cost about 0.5% of GDP. Yay, you addressed a cost of mitigation. And it only took a week of hectoring to get you to focus on this essential point! Your wording slid around a little bit there, though. Is this the same mitigation that corresponds to your improvement from a 4% warming damage to a 1% warming damage? In other words, do you assert that your “moderate action to reduce the use of carbon” will benefit the world to the tune of 3% of GDP? Or even 0.5% of GDP?
You’re an economic basket case. Even when led by the hand you cannot construct the simplest imaginable cost-benefit analysis; you’re not even aware when you’ve left out the critical pieces or switched units. Please don’t ever go into business.
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 16:37Texan99: Yay, you addressed a cost of mitigation.
Yea! We provided that exact figure nine days ago!
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 17:03Yea! We provided that exact figure nine days ago! And when you learn how to combine a specific estimate of cost with a specific estimate of benefit, both referring to the same measure, so you can compare the two, then you can do your cost-benefit analysis. You’re not there yet, but if you answer my question above you may make progress.
Pick a cure. Estimate how much it costs. Estimate how much it will benefit. Express both elements in some kind of comparable units, typically dollars. Compare them. It’s easier if you don’t let nine days and dozens of posts intervene between the basic paired elements, or make your audience ask you to stop leaving out pieces a dozen or more times. Come on, seriously, how hard is this?
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 17:19Texan99: Pick a cure.
Place a price on carbon through taxes, trading, or regulation, and develop low carbon technologies. In effect, the cure is manifold as markets search for solutions suitable for the region, climate impact, and level of development.
Texan99: Estimate how much it costs.
Four percent is on the low end of estimates of economic damage. A moderate response is ½% to 1% of GDP, and will reduce damage to 2% of GDP. A more proactive response is 2% of GDP, and will reduce damage to 1% of GDP. The longer it takes to respond, the more expensive it becomes on both ends of the equation. Poor countries will be hit harder by climate change, and some environmental damage is beyond economic estimation. Rogelj et al. is an interesting approach that addresses all the various problems and uncertainties. We provided all this information already, along with citations to the original studies.
Stern Review 2006
Garnaut Review 2007
Mitigation: reducing emissions and stabilizing the climate
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 17:59http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/climate-change/mitigation.shtml
And where we wrote “will” you can read that as “are estimated to”. That’s implicit in this sort of projection, just as it is with a cancer prognosis.
- Zachriel | 02/14/2013 @ 18:14Place a price on carbon through taxes, trading, or regulation, and develop low carbon technologies. OK, this is your proposed cure: increase carbon prices by imposing taxes on them or by doing something or other with trading (do you mean tariffs?) or regulation (cost of some kind of regulation). Now we move on to estimating how much this will cost and how much benefit it will produce.
In effect, the cure is manifold as markets search for solutions suitable for the region, climate impact, and level of development. Please. Don’t try to talk about market solutions. You don’t know how.
Four percent is on the low end of estimates of economic damage. OK, we’ll take this as the unameliorated cost of warming, which will get plugged in below.
A moderate response is ½% to 1% of GDP, and will reduce damage to 2% of GDP. I think you mean that you’re considering a “moderate” version of the “impose a tax/tariff/red-tape burden on carbon” approach from above, and you estimate that it will cost 0.5-1.0% of GDP. You also estimate that its benefit can be calculated as the difference between 4% of GDP (the estimated cost of warming) and 2% of GDP (the lower cost of warming after moderate amelioration), which is 2%.
A more proactive response is 2% of GDP, and will reduce damage to 1% of GDP. I think you mean that you’re now examining “a more proactive” version of the tax/tariff/red-tape approach, estimating that it will cost 2% of GDP, and estimating that its benefit can be calculated as the difference between 4% of GDP (the estimated cost of warming) and 1% of GDP (the lower cost of warming after pro-active amelioration), which is 3%.
Now, if your original estimate of 4% as a cost of warming is based on the same assumptions and units as your later estimates of the ability to reduce the effect of warming to somewhere between 0.5% and 2%, then you have a cost-benefit analysis that is stated in the right form: 0.5-1.0% of GDP in buck for 2% in bang, or 2% of GPD in buck for 3% in bang. What is the source of the 4% estimate? Is it really from the same source, or otherwise comparable in its assumptions or units, as the estimates of reduced damage? That’s required if we’re going to calculate benefit as [unameliorated damage] minus [ameliorated damage] without a way to translate apples to oranges.
Assuming we can say the answer to that last question is “yes,” we have only to figure out whether the estimates are believable. That’s real progress. Seriously. Man. A week.
“Poor countries will be harder hit, etc.” Yeah, and they’ll be much harder hit with the decimation of their energy resources. The anti-carbon crusade isn’t going to help poor countries; it’s going to tax energy out of their price range. So we’ll need a huge income redistribution to fix that, right?
- Texan99 | 02/14/2013 @ 19:35Texan99: What is the source of the 4% estimate? .. That’s real progress. Seriously. Man. A week.
We have provided multiple studies from the beginning of this discussion. We can’t make you read them.
- Zachriel | 02/15/2013 @ 05:08Q: What is the source of the 4% estimate? .. That’s real progress. Seriously. Man. A week.
A: We have provided multiple studies from the beginning of this discussion. We can’t make you read them.
It’s taken me a week to get you to place all in one statement an assertion of cost-benefit comparison that includes both the cost and the benefit and is stated in concrete dollars or percentages of GDP. First you argue you shouldn’t have to talk about it until we agree with you about the warming mechanism or severitiy. Then you repeatedly address one aspect of the cost-benefit while neglecting the others, shifting from study to study and fragmenting your statements across multiple posts. Even your last statement, which came closest to rationality and completeness, was phrased evasively and circuitously. You’ve finally cobbled something together that may or may not be all from the same source or calculated on an apples-to-apples basis. Now you’re playing footsie with whatever various sources this came from, and you think I’m going to run through 100 posts to find it?
Why not just admit you don’t have any idea what you’re doing when you attempt a cost-benefit argument?
- Texan99 | 02/15/2013 @ 06:40In the absence of any further attempts on Z’s part to make a cost-benefit examination cogent or tethered in some way to reality, I thought I’d post this article from today’s WSJ:
At least in the U.S., the green-scam companies figured out how to take the public money and run before the marks woke up. Europe needs to get with it.
But I’m thinking this whole tax/tariff/regulatory mechanisms is going to be a fine way to finance the dismantling of the carbon footprint. We’ve just got to find those money trees. Maybe a surcharge on everyone with an income over $400K?
- Texan99 | 02/15/2013 @ 08:53Hey, Morgan, maybe you can figure out how to repair my “a href” link up there.
- Texan99 | 02/15/2013 @ 08:54Hope I did that right. Not being a subscriber, I couldn’t compare to the original article to make sure I was interpreting it correctly.
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 08:58I was just trying to get the link to be confined to “WSJ” instead of picking up the next several hundred words, as I managed to do somehow. What follows is my paraphrasing, not a direct quotation from the article.
- Texan99 | 02/15/2013 @ 10:53Texan99: First you argue you shouldn’t have to talk about it until we agree with you about the warming mechanism or severitiy.
Usually the diagnosis comes before the prescription, yes.
Texan99: Why not just admit you don’t have any idea what you’re doing when you attempt a cost-benefit argument?
We’ve repeatedly provided you the information, along with citations to supporting research. Then you pretend you haven’t seen it. Now you rant even though you say you’ve been provided the information you requested. Not sure how else to help you.
- Zachriel | 02/15/2013 @ 11:34He’s truly brain dead.
- Texan99 | 02/15/2013 @ 11:42Hey! I made that mistake too! I think a few other people did…I can go searching for that phrase and see where else it’s been used. Must be an epidemic or something.
Or, we can consider what seems to be becoming obvious: Liberalism is less a bunch of ideas than a bunch of tactics. Question is, if the ideas are any good at all, why are cliched tactics like “not sure how else to help you” and “we’ve provided multiple citations” necessary?
- mkfreeberg | 02/15/2013 @ 12:27mkfreeberg: why are cliched tactics like “not sure how else to help you” and “we’ve provided multiple citations” necessary?
Because we’ve answered his questions, repeatedly. We’ve provided resources where he can learn about the subject. He’s rants even as he admits we answered his questions. Just not sure how else to help him.
- Zachriel | 02/15/2013 @ 12:50Captain Midnight: To sum up: the Copenhagen Consensus supports my claim that the “opportunity cost of combating global climate change to be too high.”
Zachriel That is incorrect. They concluded:
1. global warming must be addressed
2. abrupt strategies are needlessly expensive
3. they were interested in a gradual approach (not studied in detail)
4. urged increased funding for research into more affordable carbon-abatement technologies
In other words, they do not conclude the opportunity costs to be too high, but that better policies need to be proposed, probably on the line of a carbon tax that starts small and increases over time.
This is our position, as well. A gradual transition allows time for businesses to adjust, new technologies to mature, and for adjustments to be made as the process goes along.
You missed point 0 that I bolded way back up there: “The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits.” Their findings label combating climate change as a POOR use of money, placing them at the bottom of their list. They even labeled it as such in the PDF they published, in the chunk I quoted from the PDF, and I’m putting some heavy emphasis on it here. They identified 14 other challenges that would be a better bang for the buck to combat.
Since funding the climate change challenges of #15, #16, or #17 come with the opportunity cost of not funding the better options of #1 thru #14, my statement stands vindicated. But since you are wedded to the idea of climate change, that which doesn’t toe the line is dismissed, ignored, and glossed over. That’s what you did here and here.
If you are still so very gung-ho about combating climate change when it’s a poor investment of money, I have an opportunity for you: for every $1 of funding you give me, I promise to plant 10 cents worth of trees. Let me know when the first check is due to arrive.
- Captain Midnight | 02/22/2013 @ 14:59Captain Midnight: You missed point 0 that I bolded way back up there: “The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits.”
No, we didn’t miss it. They examined a small number of proposals on how to spend a limited amount of money on climate change.
In any case, they determined that global warming must be addressed.
- Zachriel | 02/24/2013 @ 18:32Captain Midnight: You missed point 0 that I bolded way back up there: “The expert panel regarded all three proposals as having costs that were likely to exceed the benefits.”
Zachriel No, we didn’t miss it. They examined a small number of proposals on how to spend a limited amount of money on climate change.
Lemme fix that last sentence for you: “They examined a small number of proposals on how to spend a limited amount of money on
climate changeglobal challenges.”I realized that im Haus von Zachriel it is Klimawandel über alles, but your fixation on climate change doesn’t mean you are entitled to rewrite other people’s positions to fit your narrow view. Here’s the lead paragraph from the Copenhagen Consensus PDF that you linked to before:
Do you notice that climate change is just one of the challenges they looked at? I realize that might be a strange concept since you are limited to just the one big drum of climate change to pound.
Zachriel In any case, they determined that global warming must be addressed.
*thump* *thump* And here’s the single note of climate change. But you again fail to acknowledge that, while they accept climate change as a problem that should be addressed, it is at the BOTTOM of the list of things to do. I emphasis that because you are so fixated on climate change that you have a hard time understanding that people who agree with you on climate change can also see efforts to combat it as money poorly spent. The CC lists 14 other actions as better uses of money above and beyond climate change. Yes, they say climate change should be addressed, but that’s the last of their list. In your world, it’s the first.
So, since fighting climate change is so important to you, just how much money are you putting forward to the Captain Midnight Tree Planting project?
- Captain Midnight | 02/25/2013 @ 12:51Captain Midnight: “They examined a small number of proposals on how to spend a limited amount of money on climate change global challenges.”
Yes, including examining a small number of proposals on how to spend a limited amount of money on climate change.
Captain Midnight: Do you notice that climate change is just one of the challenges they looked at?
Yes, quite aware of that. With all that said, our original point stands. They examined a small number of proposals on how to spend a limited amount of money on climate change. From that, they found the relatively small amount of money could be better spent on proposals other than climate change.
Captain Midnight: But you again fail to acknowledge that, while they accept climate change as a problem that should be addressed, it is at the BOTTOM of the list of things to do.
It’s the bottom of things to do, given the amount of money, given the particular proposals, which they did not consider complete. Indeed, they specifically said they were interested in a more measured approach. In any case, the resources were too limited to do anything much about climate. That requires far more resources and coordination than possible within the limitations of their project.
Captain Midnight: In your world, it’s the first.
Nope.
Captain Midnight: Yes, they say climate change should be addressed …
They used the word “must”.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 17:54Captain Midnight: Do you notice that climate change is just one of the challenges they looked at?
Zachriel Yes, quite aware of that.
Not based on your summations above. The alwarmist shahada has been very clear: “There is no crisis but climate change, and Al Gore gets the profits.”
Zachriel With all that said, our original point stands. They examined a small number of proposals on how to spend a limited amount of money on climate change. From that, they found the relatively small amount of money could be better spent on proposals other than climate change.
And again the hyper-focus on climate change. They examined a small number of propsals on how to spend a limited amount of money on combating GLOBAL CHALLENGES, only one of which is climate change, but that’s the one you focus on again and again and again and again and again.
Captain Midnight: But you again fail to acknowledge that, while they accept climate change as a problem that should be addressed, it is at the BOTTOM of the list of things to do.
Zachriel It’s the bottom of things to do, given the amount of money, given the particular proposals, which they did not consider complete. Indeed, they specifically said they were interested in a more measured approach. In any case, the resources were too limited to do anything much about climate. That requires far more resources and coordination than possible within the limitations of their project.
And if combating climate change on the small level is a poor investment of money, introducing the wanton wasting of a bloated central government is somehow going to make it a good investment of money?
Captain Midnight: In your world, it’s the first.
Zachriel Nope.
Since I can’t read your mind, I have to read your words. With your hyper-focus on climate change, to the exclusion of nine other global challenges, is there any wonder why I believe that you do put climate change first?
Captain Midnight: Yes, they say climate change should be addressed …
Zachriel They used the word “must”.
Which “must” warm the cockles of your heart to hear them say it. And when we have fixed the global problems of civil conflicts, communicable diseases, education, financial stability, governance, hunger and malnutrition, migration, trade reform, and water and sanitation, then combating climate change can be given the governmental “must” that makes you happy.
But nothing is stopping private funding of climate change solutions. Speaking of which, just how much are you willing to pony up for my tree planting project? You don’t hate trees, do you?
- Captain Midnight | 02/26/2013 @ 07:50Captain Midnight: They examined a small number of propsals on how to spend a limited amount of money on combating GLOBAL CHALLENGES, only one of which is climate change, but that’s the one you focus on again and again and again and again and again.
There are many global challenges, climate change is only one of them. We focused on climate change, because that is the point of contention.
Captain Midnight: And if combating climate change on the small level is a poor investment of money, introducing the wanton wasting of a bloated central government is somehow going to make it a good investment of money?
They indicated they were interested in a measured approach, but it wasn’t one of the proposals in their study. They also said climate change must be addressed. It’s your citation.
Captain Midnight: But nothing is stopping private funding of climate change solutions.
Any realistic proposal requires coordinated action on a global level.
- Zachriel | 02/26/2013 @ 14:30Captain Midnight: They examined a small number of propsals on how to spend a limited amount of money on combating GLOBAL CHALLENGES, only one of which is climate change, but that’s the one you focus on again and again and again and again and again.
Zachriel There are many global challenges, climate change is only one of them. We focused on climate change, because that is the point of contention.
And nothing to do with your hyper-focus. Gotcha.
Captain Midnight: And if combating climate change on the small level is a poor investment of money, introducing the wanton wasting of a bloated central government is somehow going to make it a good investment of money?
Zachriel They indicated they were interested in a measured approach, but it wasn’t one of the proposals in their study.
As if a “measured approach” is some magic economic pixie dust that will make the wanton wasting of a bloated central government vanish.
Zachriel They also said climate change must be addressed. It’s your citation.
Yep. It’s got to be addressed, both you and they say. And who the hell cares if good money is thrown at poor programs? Certainly not you, because something must be done! *thump* *thump* Something must be done!
Captain Midnight: But nothing is stopping private funding of climate change solutions.
Zachriel Any realistic proposal requires coordinated action on a global level.
Something must be done! *thump* *thump* But not by you on a local level because you are unwilling to throw your personal money into poor performing programs to combat climate change. Instead, you want action on on a global level, compelling people through the heavy-hand of government force to throw their confiscated money into poor performing programs to combat climate change.
How noble of you! And how very telling.
- Captain Midnight | 02/27/2013 @ 08:02Captain Midnight: And nothing to do with your hyper-focus.
That’s right. We’d be happy to talk about immunization or childhood nutrition. We’re in favor.
Captain Midnight: Something must be done!
It was your citation. We read, and carefully considered their points, largely agreeing with their conclusions based on the premises of the study.
Captain Midnight: Instead, you want action on on a global level
It has to be on a global level. It’s a shared atmosphere. If some countries continue to emit greenhouse gases, then it affects everyone. It’s similar to the problem with air and water pollution. The solution required uniform laws and standards.
Captain Midnight: How noble of you!
Simple. Just don’t emit greenhouses gases into the atmosphere that you share with others. Or more reasonably, work out compromises that address people’s concerns about climate change.
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 15:57Captain Midnight: And nothing to do with your hyper-focus.
Zachriel That’s right. We’d be happy to talk about immunization or childhood nutrition. We’re in favor.
Interesting that your initial take on Lomborg’s proposal was so dismissive. But now that you’re in favor of fixing these issues, we can put aside the inefficient climate change efforts and focus on spending money wisely to maximize the good it can create.
Captain Midnight: Something must be done!
Zachriel It was your citation. We read, and carefully considered their points, largely agreeing with their conclusions based on the premises of the study.
You agreement with that one part was made clear each time you cited their support for fighting climate change. But your posts neglected the opportunity cost that doing so would be at the cost of not funding the other 14 projects that have a better return for the money.
Captain Midnight: Instead, you want action on on a global level
Zachriel It has to be on a global level. It’s a shared atmosphere. If some countries continue to emit greenhouse gases, then it affects everyone. It’s similar to the problem with air and water pollution. The solution required uniform laws and standards.
Call for work at a global level absolves people from doing their part on the local level. We can see this by the way you have no intention of funding tree planting with your personal money, and I don’t blame you: it’s a poor use of money for the scant good it would generate. That same poor use of money doesn’t magically become a good use of money when magnified by a large central bureaucracy and its intrinsic wastefulness with orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, lost, found, queried, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters.
But what happens when large nation states say, “Frak you!” to the uniform laws and standards? When China or India (or any nation state, for that matter) decides to ignore the UN rules or any global body’s standards, what then? Eventually centrally-planned big government states turn to killing to get their way. How many million Chinese and/or Indians are you calling to be sacrificed at the altar of uniform laws and standards to order to force the wayword nations to toe the global line?
Zachriel Simple. Just don’t emit greenhouses gases into the atmosphere that you share with others.
Step this way to the disintegration booth for the good of the planet. Seems killing is not that far from your mind as a solution. Now just strike down these evil emitters and your journey towards the dark side will be complete! It’s for the good of Gaia, so exterminate!
Zachriel Or more reasonably, work out compromises that address people’s concerns about climate change.
Compromise works when people are only slightly different in their goals. Compromise between a $2.25 and a $3 increase is easy. Compromise between a victim and a mugger is difficult. Does he steal only half the victim’s money? And when the response is “No surrender, no retreat” then how is compromise possible at all?
- Captain Midnight | 02/28/2013 @ 16:00Captain Midnight: Interesting that your initial take on Lomborg’s proposal was so dismissive.
We were dismissive of the claim that “$75 billion would solve all major basic problems the world faces today.”
Captain Midnight: But now that you’re in favor of fixing these issues, we can put aside the inefficient climate change efforts and focus on spending money wisely to maximize the good it can create.
Per your citation, climate change must be addressed. The reason is because the problem, costs, and damage becomes worse the longer the problem is left unaddressed.
Captain Midnight: But your posts neglected the opportunity cost that doing so would be at the cost of not funding the other 14 projects that have a better return for the money.
Not at all. We agree that if you have only $75 billion to spend, there are more important spending priorities. Climate change as a problem and the costs of mitigation are far higher than anything that can be accomplished for $75 billion.
If you have a homeless family, and $100 to spend, a tent is a better investment than buying a window for a future home.
Captain Midnight: Call for work at a global level absolves people from doing their part on the local level.
Individual action is largely ineffective at protecting the commons. That’s because it is to every individual interest to pollute but to the detriment of everyone.
Captain Midnight: That same poor use of money doesn’t magically become a good use of money when magnified by a large central bureaucracy …
That is not necessarily correct, as shown by the progress made on clean air and water in the U.S. and Europe. It took uniform laws and regulations.
Captain Midnight: When China or India (or any nation state, for that matter) decides to ignore the UN rules or any global body’s standards, what then?
China and India have access to the same science. China is already moving on climate change mitigation.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/19/c_132178898.htm
Captain Midnight: Seems killing is not that far from your mind as a solution.
We merely suggested it was rude to continue to dump your problems on other people.
- Zachriel | 02/28/2013 @ 16:34Captain Midnight: Interesting that your initial take on Lomborg’s proposal was so dismissive.
Zachriel We were dismissive of the claim that “$75 billion would solve all major basic problems the world faces today.”
As I said, dismissive.
Captain Midnight: But now that you’re in favor of fixing these issues, we can put aside the inefficient climate change efforts and focus on spending money wisely to maximize the good it can create.
Zachriel Per your citation, climate change must be addressed. The reason is because the problem, costs, and damage becomes worse the longer the problem is left unaddressed.
“Must be addressed” after the other 14 have been solved. You keep neglecting that “after” bit. Funding climate change fixes before the other fixes is throwing good money at a poor benefit.
Captain Midnight: But your posts neglected the opportunity cost that doing so would be at the cost of not funding the other 14 projects that have a better return for the money.
Zachriel Not at all. We agree that if you have only $75 billion to spend, there are more important spending priorities. Climate change as a problem and the costs of mitigation are far higher than anything that can be accomplished for $75 billion.
From way before:
Gosh! What a benefit! Let’s rush out and make it happen. And while the world diverts many billions to a nebulous benefit decades and centuries down the road, there is real human suffering that can be addressed today.
Captain Midnight: Call for work at a global level absolves people from doing their part on the local level.
Zachriel Individual action is largely ineffective at protecting the commons. That’s because it is to every individual interest to pollute but to the detriment of everyone.
And it’s so much easier to call for some big government action than it is to actually do something yourself. That’s why you have never shown any indication of wanting to spend your money to plant trees. Instead your basic call is for bigger government involvement.
Captain Midnight: That same poor use of money doesn’t magically become a good use of money when magnified by a large central bureaucracy …
Zachriel That is not necessarily correct, as shown by the progress made on clean air and water in the U.S. and Europe. It took uniform laws and regulations.
If I give $1 to a struggling mom on welfare, that mom now has $1. If the government takes $1 in taxes from me, and redistributes it to the same struggling mom on welfare, she gets about 25 cents of my money. The rest was eaten up by the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy. But please keep repeating your line about clean air and water. It doesn’t have anything to do with the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy, but it’s been repeated often enough that it feels like an old friend. I do miss the burning river reference, tho.
Captain Midnight: When China or India (or any nation state, for that matter) decides to ignore the UN rules or any global body’s standards, what then?
Zachriel China and India have access to the same science. China is already moving on climate change mitigation.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2013-02/19/c_132178898.htm
Wow, carbon taxes. It’s a disaster twofer: it makes energy more expensive for the people, and it puts tax money into the hands of an inherently wasteful government bureaucracy. What could possibly go wrong here?
Captain Midnight: Seems killing is not that far from your mind as a solution.
Zachriel We merely suggested it was rude to continue to dump your problems on other people.
And when rude nations mouth platitudes about fighting climate change but continue to pump vast quantities of gw gases into the atmosphere, how many millions of them must die to force them to toe the line? When there is no compromise, force is left. So again, how many millions are you willing to sacrifice on the altar of climate change?
- Captain Midnight | 03/01/2013 @ 11:54This is my approach to scientific authority: Trust but verify.
It’s miles from the exegesis of sacred texts that was the rule before the scientific revolution.
- Texan99 | 03/01/2013 @ 11:59Captain Midnight: As I said, dismissive.
Of course it’s dismissive, because the claim that all the world’s problems can be solved for $75 billion is ridiculous.
Captain Midnight: Lomborg states that if everyone agreed with protocols like Kyoto, it would cost about $150 billion a year, but the result would be very minor.
That’s right. It requires a restructuring of the world’s energy economy. It took generations to build; it will take at least a generation to rebuild. Of course, much of it has to be replaced every few decades anyway, so it’s a matter of phasing out the old technology.
Captain Midnight: And while the world diverts many billions to a nebulous benefit decades and centuries down the road, there is real human suffering that can be addressed today.
Turns out that people can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. People can work on curing diseases and climate change at the same time. As the Gates foundation pointed out, development and climate change are linked.
Captain Midnight: And it’s so much easier to call for some big government action than it is to actually do something yourself.
Individual action is largely ineffective at protecting the commons. That’s because it is to every individual interest to pollute but to the detriment of everyone. (Try to answer the point this time. Do you understand the tragedy of the commons?)
Captain Midnight: But please keep repeating your line about clean air and water. It doesn’t have anything to do with the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy, but it’s been repeated often enough that it feels like an old friend.
You need to address the point. Those who pollute are at a competitive advantage over those who spend the money to limit their effluence. This pushes everyone to pollute, to the detriment of everyone. Uniform laws and regulations against pollution put everyone on an equal competitive footing. Uniform laws and regulations against pollution have been very effective at controlling pollution while allowing businesses to compete within that framework.
Captain Midnight: Wow, carbon taxes.
Try to acknowledge points. You had indicated that China and India were not responding to climate change. That was false. They have scientists, and they can see the same data. Continued development means controlling pollution and mitigating climate change.
Captain Midnight: And when rude nations mouth platitudes about fighting climate change but continue to pump vast quantities of gw gases into the atmosphere, how many millions of them must die to force them to toe the line?
International trade provides a structure for agreements. If China wants to sell in Germany, if France wants to sell in Indonesia, then they will have to abide by international norms. This is similar to the problem of U.S. acid rain polluting Canadian waters, or Soviet nuclear wastes blowing over Europe. Nearly every country in the world participates in global trade, and are party to international trade agreements.
Captain Midnight: This is my approach to scientific authority: Trust but verify.
We agree.
- Zachriel | 03/01/2013 @ 13:44Captain Midnight: As I said, dismissive.
Zachriel Of course it’s dismissive, because the claim that all the world’s problems can be solved for $75 billion is ridiculous.
As I said, dismissive.
Captain Midnight: Lomborg states that if everyone agreed with protocols like Kyoto, it would cost about $150 billion a year, but the result would be very minor.
Zachriel That’s right.
So let’s spend a butt-load of money for a minor return. Sounds like bad investment to me. And judging by your lack of willingness to pony up your own money in a similar bad investment, you understand this point at a personal level, but fail to grok it at a global one.
Captain Midnight: And while the world diverts many billions to a nebulous benefit decades and centuries down the road, there is real human suffering that can be addressed today.
Zachriel Turns out that people can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time.
Really? That’s so profound, I’ve got to write it down! “…same time.” OK, continue.
Zachriel People can work on curing diseases and climate change at the same time.
But not with the same money. This is the nature of opportunity costs. I seem to recall that point being raised at some point.
Captain Midnight: And it’s so much easier to call for some big government action than it is to actually do something yourself.
Zachriel Individual action is largely ineffective at protecting the commons. That’s because it is to every individual interest to pollute but to the detriment of everyone. (Try to answer the point this time. Do you understand the tragedy of the commons?)
I do understand the tragedy of the commons. The town’s sheep overgraze the town square, but that doesn’t stop a farmer from putting forth his own money for private grazing lands. Man’s actions produce CO2, but that doesn’t stop you from spending your money to plant trees. You can actually do something, or you can post incessant messages on the internet and lecture strangers about the tragedy of the commons. Your call, but so far it appears that you prefer to hector over action. Do you grasp my point that you have shown no inclination to spend your personal money to do good?
Captain Midnight: But please keep repeating your line about clean air and water. It doesn’t have anything to do with the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy, but it’s been repeated often enough that it feels like an old friend.
Zachriel You need to address the point. Those who pollute are at a competitive advantage over those who spend the money to limit their effluence. This pushes everyone to pollute, to the detriment of everyone. Uniform laws and regulations against pollution put everyone on an equal competitive footing. Uniform laws and regulations against pollution have been very effective at controlling pollution while allowing businesses to compete within that framework.
Yay! It’s tragedy of the commons time again. But you again gloss over my point of the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy in your rush to lecture.
Captain Midnight: Wow, carbon taxes.
Zachriel Try to acknowledge points.
Like the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy and the added burden people labor under with increased energy costs that you trimmed off? Oh, sorry, I’ve interrupted your lecture. Proceed.
Zachriel You had indicated that China and India were not responding to climate change. That was false. They have scientists, and they can see the same data. Continued development means controlling pollution and mitigating climate change.
Try to read for comprehension. I said, “When China or India (or any nation state, for that matter) decides to ignore the UN rules or any global body’s standards, what then?” I didn’t say that they aren’t, I asked what is the response if some nation refuses? You have yet to address that question other than dancing around international norms. But what happens when a nation builds 50 massive coal-burning power plants a day and refuses to join in any UN treaties on limiting CO2? How many millions of those people need to die to force that nation to stop?
Captain Midnight: And when rude nations mouth platitudes about fighting climate change but continue to pump vast quantities of gw gases into the atmosphere, how many millions of them must die to force them to toe the line?
Zachriel International trade provides a structure for agreements.
And when that nation says it will gladly sell rare earth elements, manufactured goods, or boatloads of gizmos but refuses to sign onto some Kyoto 2 treaty, what then? Since nation X isn’t burdened by the additional costs, they are at a competitive advantage. Do the other signatories form the Tragedy of the Commons strike group and force nation X to comply against their wishes? How many million dead on both sides of the conflict is too high a price to pay to force nation X to comply to some international climate change treaty?
- Captain Midnight | 03/01/2013 @ 18:26Captain Midnight: As I said, dismissive.
Rightly so. There is no way to solve *all* the problems of the world with $75 billion. The world already spends far more than that *every year*, and while you might argue much of it is wasted, certainly some of it is not.
Captain Midnight: I do understand the tragedy of the commons. The town’s sheep overgraze the town square, but that doesn’t stop a farmer from putting forth his own money for private grazing lands.
That’s right, but the atmosphere is not amenable to privatization. That’s why pollution laws were passed; because when you emit pollution, you pollute everyone’s atmosphere.
Captain Midnight: Man’s actions produce CO2, but that doesn’t stop you from spending your money to plant trees.
You said you understand the tragedy of the commons, but this statement shows you don’t. No amount of planting trees can compensate for all emissions. In order to limit climate change, the world has to retool their energy infrastructure. The good news is that this is not only possible, but has many tangential benefits.
Captain Midnight: But you again gloss over my point of the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy in your rush to lecture.
We do understand that bureaucracies tend to be inefficient, however, we provided you an example how laws significantly reduced conventional pollution. Notably, you ignored this, along with our other points.
Captain Midnight: Oh, sorry, I’ve interrupted your lecture.
You made a misstatement, but won’t acknowledge it.
Captain Midnight: I didn’t say that they aren’t, I asked what is the response if some nation refuses? You have yet to address that question other than dancing around international norms
We did answer it, in detail. International agreements already bind nations to a large degree. As international trade becomes more intertwined and more important, nations will increasingly have to abide by standards of conduct. Countries that flout the rules would be subject to trade sanctions. Indeed, nearly all countries are already part of the international system. Coming to an international agreement on climate will be difficult, but everyone is looking at the same science, and everyone knows that continued development depends on implementing environmental policies.
Captain Midnight: Since nation X isn’t burdened by the additional costs, they are at a competitive advantage.
That’s right, so like, say, using child labor, other countries will react negatively. There are already mechanisms that impose trade sanctions for those countries that don’t abide by rules of international trade. And, in any case, it’s never a good idea to anger your own customers. Try using lead paint on toys and see how quickly you lose sales.
The world’s changing.
- Zachriel | 03/01/2013 @ 19:26Captain Midnight: As I said, dismissive.
Zachriel Rightly so. There is no way to solve *all* the problems of the world with $75 billion. The world already spends far more than that *every year*, and while you might argue much of it is wasted, certainly some of it is not.
As I said, dismissive.
Captain Midnight: Man’s actions produce CO2, but that doesn’t stop you from spending your money to plant trees.
Zachriel You said you understand the tragedy of the commons, but this statement shows you don’t. No amount of planting trees can compensate for all emissions.
Who said anything about compensating for all emissions? I’m talking about a person doing good with his own money. It’s easy to look at a large problem, say global hunger, throw up your hands and do nothing because there’s no way that one person can solve the whole problem. But while there is no way to solve the whole problem by yourself, one person can reach out and do good, if nothing more than with one person and one meal. Something you’ve shown no indication that you’re willing to do.
Captain Midnight: But you again gloss over my point of the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy in your rush to lecture.
Zachriel We do understand that bureaucracies tend to be inefficient, however, we provided you an example how laws significantly reduced conventional pollution. Notably, you ignored this, along with our other points.
You do understand that bureaucracy and laws are two different things? Why do you conflate them so?
Captain Midnight: Oh, sorry, I’ve interrupted your lecture.
Zachriel You made a misstatement, but won’t acknowledge it.
“Like the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy and the added burden people labor under with increased energy costs that you trimmed off?” What part of that is a misstatement?
Captain Midnight: I didn’t say that they aren’t, I asked what is the response if some nation refuses? You have yet to address that question other than dancing around international norms
Zachriel We did answer it, in detail.
I trimmed yet another song and dance of international norms since it again misses the point. If a nation continues to emit 10x, 50x, or 1,000x the CO2 of every other nation on the planet combined, and they also refuse to live by any international rules, what then? A strongly worded letter that they will ignore? An international treaty that they refuse to sign? Trade restrictions if they chose to enact a 21st century’s version of Japan’s “closed country” policy? What do you do when that nation refuses to play along with international rules? That is the issue you have never answered or addressed.
- Captain Midnight | 03/02/2013 @ 11:55Captain Midnight: As I said, dismissive.
We provided reasons why the claim was out of the realm of the reasonable. You just repeating that we were dismissive.
Captain Midnight: It’s easy to look at a large problem, say global hunger, throw up your hands and do nothing because there’s no way that one person can solve the whole problem.
As we said, you’re showing ignorance of the tragedy of the commons. While we can feed one person and save one person, with the atmosphere, reducing one’s individual emissions won’t solve the problem. Others will just emit more as they gain a competitive advantage. It will require uniform standards.
Captain Midnight: You do understand that bureaucracy and laws are two different things?
Yes. In the case of pollution laws, it requires promulgating and enforcing regulations. Laws that enabled a bureaucracy to regulate pollution reduced air and water pollution in the developed world.
Captain Midnight: What part of that is a misstatement?
You had suggested that China was ignoring international concern about climate change. They are already moving ahead on regulating carbon.
Captain Midnight: “Like the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy and the added burden people labor under with increased energy costs that you trimmed off?”
Increasing the cost of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. That’s basic economics, and the policy recommended by conservative economists. It will also have other benefits, such as more efficient use of energy and lower conventional pollution.
Captain Midnight: If a nation continues to emit 10x, 50x, or 1,000x the CO2 of every other nation on the planet combined, and they also refuse to live by any international rules, what then?
In the modern world, large-scale emissions are tied to international trade. Other countries will avoid trade with countries that won’t abide by international norms. It will require international agreement, but that’s fairly standard now. Most of the world is already tied together by trade agreements.
You’re living in the past.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2013 @ 12:58Captain Midnight: As I said, dismissive.
Zachriel We provided reasons why the claim was out of the realm of the reasonable. You just repeating that we were dismissive.
I stated that you were dismissive from the beginning. Your explanations as to why you are dismissive do not change the fact that you were dismissive from the beginning. But please feel free to repeat your reasons for dismissing Lomborg’s claims, and I’ll continue to point out that you were (and continue to be) dismissive.
Captain Midnight: It’s easy to look at a large problem, say global hunger, throw up your hands and do nothing because there’s no way that one person can solve the whole problem.
Zachriel As we said, you’re showing ignorance of the tragedy of the commons. While we can feed one person and save one person, with the atmosphere, reducing one’s individual emissions won’t solve the problem. Others will just emit more as they gain a competitive advantage. It will require uniform standards.
It’s clear that you are having a hard time reading for comprehension recently. It’s also clear that you see no use in a single person doing what he or she can do to fix a global issue since a single person’s efforts won’t fix the entire problem. And that’s true, but for the individual helped out, it means a world of good. That’s been my point from the beginning. “I’m talking about a person doing good with his own money.” That’s the sentence you conveniently trimmed from my comment above. And finally, it is abundantly clear that you have shown no indication that you personally are willing to help out anyone with your own money. At the very least you could pony up cash for some Gaian indulgences in the form of carbon credits. Reminder: that’s the initial point of this post by Morgan.
Captain Midnight: You do understand that bureaucracy and laws are two different things?
Zachriel Yes. In the case of pollution laws, it requires promulgating and enforcing regulations. Laws that enabled a bureaucracy to regulate pollution reduced air and water pollution in the developed world.
Sure, laws can have effects. Are you ready to acknowledge that the introduction of a bureaucracy is also the introduction of waste and inefficiencies? That’s been my complaint of carbon taxes from the beginning. I understand why you have no inherent distrust of bureaucracy, identifying yourself with a celestial bureaucrat as you do, but until we have perfect angels running the bureaucracies here on earth, we’ll always have waste and inefficiencies with them.
Captain Midnight: What part of that is a misstatement?
Zachriel You had suggested that China was ignoring international concern about climate change. They are already moving ahead on regulating carbon.
Allow me to requote what I had quoted before:
You still haven’t answered what happens when a nation refuses to comply.
Captain Midnight: “Like the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy and the added burden people labor under with increased energy costs that you trimmed off?”
Zachriel Increasing the cost of greenhouse gas emissions will lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. That’s basic economics, and the policy recommended by conservative economists. It will also have other benefits, such as more efficient use of energy and lower conventional pollution.
Way back I identified that wealth, in the form of money and abundant energy, is what people need to react to changes in the environment. Carbon taxes reduce both the people’s money and access to energy. But they are great for bureaucrats.
Captain Midnight: If a nation continues to emit 10x, 50x, or 1,000x the CO2 of every other nation on the planet combined, and they also refuse to live by any international rules, what then?
Zachriel In the modern world, large-scale emissions are tied to international trade. Other countries will avoid trade with countries that won’t abide by international norms. It will require international agreement, but that’s fairly standard now. Most of the world is already tied together by trade agreements.
You obviously missed that part of “refuse to live by any international rules” from above and from my repeated comments. What do you do when the nation doesn’t care to reduce emissions, nor cares about international trade rules? Rules work great with people, organizations, or nations that are willing to abide by them, but they do little to nothing with scofflaws. Or you can just say that you are unwilling to discuss what would happen with an uncooperative nation.
- Captain Midnight | 03/02/2013 @ 15:31Captain Midnight: But please feel free to repeat your reasons for dismissing Lomborg’s claims, and I’ll continue to point out that you were (and continue to be) dismissive.
Please feel free to continue to ignore those reasons, but it’s unlikely most open-minded readers will find that a persuasive argument.
Captain Midnight: And that’s true, but for the individual helped out, it means a world of good.
With food, but not with the emission of greenhouse gases. One country may reduce its greenhouse emissions, but that provides a competitive advantage to others to dump. That’s the tragedy of the commons. It is to the individual’s advantage to dump as much as possible, but to everyone’s ultimate detriment. Cooperation is how you overcome this dynamic.
Captain Midnight: Are you ready to acknowledge that the introduction of a bureaucracy is also the introduction of waste and inefficiencies?
Sure. The second law of thermodynamics. People waste. Businesses generally waste more. Governments waste still more. The Sun will eventually cool and die. Nevertheless, the advantages of combining efforts often outmeasure the disadvantages.
Captain Midnight: I understand why you have no inherent distrust of bureaucracy, …
We are wary of central government, but it’s not an issue that is impossible to address.
Captain Midnight: … identifying yourself with a celestial bureaucrat as you do, but until we have perfect angels running the bureaucracies here on earth, we’ll always have waste and inefficiencies with them.
True enough.
Captain Midnight: You still haven’t answered what happens when a nation refuses to comply.
As we said many times, they will be penalized in their trade relations. Every major industrial and industrializing power is involved in international trade. Emissions are largely due to trade. That’s the modern world.
Captain Midnight: Way back I identified that wealth, in the form of money and abundant energy, is what people need to react to changes in the environment.
We agree.
Captain Midnight: Carbon taxes reduce both the people’s money and access to energy.
Which is why they have to be phased in over time. That allows markets to make the necessary adjustments.
Captain Midnight: You obviously missed that part of “refuse to live by any international rules” from above and from my repeated comments.
As we’ve said many times, countries that don’t abide by international rules don’t trade much, and generally don’t emit much.
In any case, every major emitter has access to the same data pointing to climate change. They are all moving, albeit slowly, towards climate change mitigation. The sooner a plan is in place, the less expensive and less disruptive it will be.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2013 @ 18:39Captain Midnight: But please feel free to repeat your reasons for dismissing Lomborg’s claims, and I’ll continue to point out that you were (and continue to be) dismissive.
Zachriel Please feel free to continue to ignore those reasons, but it’s unlikely most open-minded readers will find that a persuasive argument.
You are dismissive, but you really haven’t provided reasons other than “Um, no. Not even close,” “silver-bullets,” and “ridiculous.” As I see it, there are two sides to this discussion:
On the one hand: Bjorn Lomborg stated in his 2005 TED talk that about $75 billion “could solve all major basic problems in the world.” He then enumerates “clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, and education” as examples of problems that could be solved. This statement was based on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals which lists the following as their goals for 2015: end poverty and hunger, universal education, gender equality, child health, maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, environmental sustainability, and global partnership. The World Bank estimated the cost of the UN Millennium Development Goals as requiring an additional $40-$60 billion a year.
On the other hand: an anonymous blogger dismissively goes “pfft” to the idea.
Yeah, I’m sure open-minded readers will find one side to be persuasive.
Captain Midnight: And that’s true, but for the individual helped out, it means a world of good.
Zachriel With food, but not with the emission of greenhouse gases. One country may reduce its greenhouse emissions, but that provides a competitive advantage to others to dump. That’s the tragedy of the commons. It is to the individual’s advantage to dump as much as possible, but to everyone’s ultimate detriment. Cooperation is how you overcome this dynamic.
You consistently trim out my comments like “I’m talking about a person doing good with his own money.” No individual can fix a global problem, but an individual can contribute to the solution, even if it is a small as one seven-billionth of the solution. But it seems to me that in your mind that since an individual cannot solve a global problems, there’s no reason for that individual to even attempt any action. An individual’s action to do good is dismissed out of hand, and you return to the totalitarian’s wet dream of global-wide control.
Captain Midnight: I understand why you have no inherent distrust of bureaucracy, …
Zachriel We are wary of central government, but it’s not an issue that is impossible to address.
Granting a central authority control over every aspect of human endeavors is not a good start if you are wary. Since every human action creates CO2, regulating it or imposing a carbon tax is putting the bureaucratic boot-heel on everyone’s neck.
Since you trimmed the part where you claim I made a misstatement, are you acknowledging thru silence that it wasn’t a misstatement, or are you issuing a plea of nolo contendere?
Captain Midnight: You still haven’t answered what happens when a nation refuses to comply.
Zachriel As we said many times, they will be penalized in their trade relations. Every major industrial and industrializing power is involved in international trade. Emissions are largely due to trade. That’s the modern world.
You could just state that you are unwilling to engage in “what if?” questions since you have yet to actually answer the question.
Captain Midnight: Way back I identified that wealth, in the form of money and abundant energy, is what people need to react to changes in the environment.
Zachriel We agree.
Captain Midnight: Carbon taxes reduce both the people’s money and access to energy.
Zachriel Which is why they have to be phased in over time. That allows markets to make the necessary adjustments.
“I’m sorry your grandmother died in the heat wave. The high cost of electricity prevented her from running the AC to keep her cool.” Individuals will suffer during these adjustments when their money and access to energy are reduced. I would much rather have the free market adjust to technology and demands on its own rather than having centralized bureaucracies issue mandates and regulations. But I’m not the one making persistent calls for central control. As wary as you say you are, your consistent call to arms is for central government control.
Seems to me, that you are a fan of big-state control. Climate change appears to just be a vehicle to the ends of central control.
- Captain Midnight | 03/08/2013 @ 15:42Captain Midnight: On the one hand: Bjorn Lomborg stated in his 2005 TED talk that about $75 billion “could solve all major basic problems in the world.” He then enumerates “clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care, and education” as examples of problems that could be solved. This statement was based on the United Nations Millennium Development Goals which lists the following as their goals for 2015: end poverty and hunger, universal education, gender equality, child health, maternal health, combat HIV/AIDS, environmental sustainability, and global partnership. The World Bank estimated the cost of the UN Millennium Development Goals as requiring an additional $40-$60 billion a year.
Okay. Now at least you have provided some basis for your the claim that “$75 billion would solve all major basic problems the world faces today.” And we can understand the confusion. First of all, you have the price wrong. It’s not $75 billion, but $40-$60 billion per year, and that is in addition to current spending. Second, it doesn’t solve “all major basic problems the world faces today”. With regard to poverty, the goal is to halve the number of people who suffer from hunger, reduce childhood mortality by 2/3, and halve the number of people without access to potable water. All of this is predicated on essential political and economic reforms, without which, the entire effort is doomed. We agree this is within the realm of possibility.
Captain Midnight: No individual can fix a global problem, but an individual can contribute to the solution, even if it is a small as one seven-billionth of the solution.
Not where there’s a rush to utilize the resource before others do, the tragedy of the commons. The incentives are backwards, and good stewards are punished.
Captain Midnight: But it seems to me that in your mind that since an individual cannot solve a global problems, there’s no reason for that individual to even attempt any action.
Many problems are amenable to individual action, but addressing the tragedy of the commons is not one of them.
Captain Midnight: You could just state that you are unwilling to engage in “what if?” questions since you have yet to actually answer the question.
We did answer the question. Those who don’t abide will be ostracized by the international trading system. It will cost them money and prestige. It doesn’t pay to disgruntle your own customers. But this is academic, as most major industrial and industrializing nations see the same science, and are beginning to take action.
Captain Midnight: Individuals will suffer during these adjustments when their money and access to energy are reduced.
Current plans include amelioration for poverty. Indeed, that’s the essential problem, how to maintain economic growth and development while addressing climate change. Your position is essentially black-and-white thinking, only one or the other can occur. As we saw with conventional pollution, it’s quite possible to do both.
- Zachriel | 03/09/2013 @ 05:42Not where there’s a rush to utilize the resource before others do, the tragedy of the commons. The incentives are backwards, and good stewards are punished.
I find it agreeable that this is identified. It is a problem ever-present in the human condition.
Humanity has also presented solutions: Someone is to be put in charge of the resources, somehow establishing ownership of them, such that their ownership of the resources translates into ownership of the associated problems.
Your identification of the tragedy of the commons as a problem that has to be anticipated and prevented, looks to me like a plea for tax cuts. I know you might not have intended it that way, but that is the cure for the malady. When the consumers have ownership, conservation becomes a natural incentive. As we see with the recent sequester business, when politicians have ownership of the resources and then are given natural incentive toward conservation, the politicians fail to act. They tend to blame every single resource gap on the taxpayers, for not having paid enough. This mindset is the exact opposite of what we need, if we’re being sincere in our worries about exhaustion of natural resources, so a movement (return) of ownership into the private sector is the logical solution.
- mkfreeberg | 03/09/2013 @ 07:16Exactly. The “tragedy of the commons” is another way of saying “how badly things often work out when you try to hold resources in common.”
By the way, I think you would enjoy this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/08/a-bridge-in-the-climate-debate-how-to-green-the-worlds-deserts-and-reverse-climate-change/#more-81728
- Texan99 | 03/09/2013 @ 07:34mkfreeberg: Humanity has also presented solutions: Someone is to be put in charge of the resources, somehow establishing ownership of them, such that their ownership of the resources translates into ownership of the associated problems.
That’s right. Depending on the situation, that might mean a king to rule them all, divvying up the resource, or in modern society, public ownership through the democratic process. For instance, conventional air pollution was accomplished with laws and regulations. Controlling ozone depletion was tackled through emissions trading, a market-based approach.
Texan99: Exactly. The “tragedy of the commons” is another way of saying “how badly things often work out when you try to hold resources in common.”
The Firemen’s Ball.
- Zachriel | 03/09/2013 @ 15:22I assume you mean the Milos Forman play, but it’s funny you should mention a fire department in the context of the tragedy of the commons. In a society that’s not utterly corrupted by collectivism, a fire department is actually a good example of a function that can be handled very well collectively. My small community depends entirely on a volunteer fire department, and we have no theft problem of any kind. Sharing a tool that has to be used only so often to combat an emergency with public ramifications seems to work very well. Sharing a piece of land or water from which limited resources have to be harvested sustainably does not, or at least not if the sharing community isn’t as tight as a tribe.
- Texan99 | 03/09/2013 @ 16:58For some reason, a lot of people running around with very loud opinions today seem to think the public sector is somehow immune from “Fireman’s Ball” debacles. Even though the play itself, as can be inferred from the title, has something to do with the private sector, albeit not the federal level.
Private sector == NO competition. We’ve got a lot of people who seem to forget this.
- mkfreeberg | 03/09/2013 @ 17:12Texan99: I assume you mean the Milos Forman play, but it’s funny you should mention a fire department in the context of the tragedy of the commons. In a society that’s not utterly corrupted by collectivism, a fire department is actually a good example of a function that can be handled very well collectively.
Marcus Licinius Crassus was famous for his private fire deparment.
- Zachriel | 03/10/2013 @ 06:50Zachriel Okay. Now at least you have provided some basis for your the claim that “$75 billion would solve all major basic problems the world faces today.”
Not my claim, but Bjorn Lomborg’s.
Zachriel And we can understand the confusion. First of all, you have the price wrong. It’s not $75 billion, but $40-$60 billion per year, and that is in addition to current spending.
And that this is additional spending per year is news to you? Did you fail to watch Lomborg’s TED Talk or did you just simply fail to comprehend it?
Now you can engage in pedantic nit-pickery over dollar figures or whether a specific plan is feasible if that makes you happy, but are you willing to agree with Lomborg and the economists of the Copenhagen Consensus that money spent on climate change is a poor return on the money invested, while money spent on the other items in their list returns greater benefits?
Zachriel Many problems are amenable to individual action, but addressing the tragedy of the commons is not one of them.
So the modern Gaia indulgences of carbon credits are useless. I agree completely.
Captain Midnight: You could just state that you are unwilling to engage in “what if?” questions since you have yet to actually answer the question.
Zachriel We did answer the question.
No, you never have. You have redefined the question and then answered that. Here’s the question as clear as I can make it for you:
Evil country X is doing the following—
* states that it will not abide any international rules on gases
* has sealed its borders preventing trade, communications, as well as any inspectors
* produces 1,000x the greenhouse gases of all other nations combined
* announces that their greenhouse gas output should double each decade
With that understanding, what do you, Zachriel, absolute monarch of all the world’s nations (except for X, of course), do in this situation?
- Captain Midnight | 03/13/2013 @ 11:58Captain Midnight: And that this is additional spending per year is news to you?
We relied on your statement: “On the other hand, he states that $75 billion would solve all major basic problems the world faces today.” Your citation of the UN Millennium Development Goals doesn’t support solving “all major basic problems the world faces today”, but does attempt a sizable contribution to solving those problems. With those corrections, it is a plausible plan.
The world economy is about $80 trillion per year. Given just 2% growth, that’s about $6.8 quintillion over the next fifty years. That leaves resources to address other concerns.
Zachriel: Many problems are amenable to individual action, but addressing the tragedy of the commons is not one of them.
Captain Midnight: So the modern Gaia indulgences of carbon credits are useless. I agree completely.
You didn’t address the point.
Captain Midnight: Evil country X is doing the following—
* states that it will not abide any international rules on gases
* has sealed its borders preventing trade, communications, as well as any inspectors
* produces 1,000x the greenhouse gases of all other nations combined
* announces that their greenhouse gas output should double each decade
Heh. That’s funny. Sort of a very, very slow way to destroy the world. Turns out that most greenhouse emissions are due to development and trade, not lack of development and trade. Your scenario doesn’t make sense and doesn’t exist in the real world.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2013 @ 12:45Captain Midnight: And that this is additional spending per year is news to you?
Zachriel We relied on your statement…
So you couldn’t be bothered to watch a 17 minute TED Talk. Gotcha.
Zachriel: Many problems are amenable to individual action, but addressing the tragedy of the commons is not one of them.
Captain Midnight: So the modern Gaia indulgences of carbon credits are useless. I agree completely.
Zachriel You didn’t address the point.
We’ve danced this several times now. The CO2 emissions situation is a tragedy of the commons which means an individual cannot solve the problem, so the individual shouldn’t do anything even try (putting the lie to the carbon credits idea). The only solution is a global centralized authority to regulate every human endeavor. The point is abundantly clear. Do we need to do-si-do this again?
Captain Midnight: Evil country X is doing the following—
* states that it will not abide any international rules on gases
* has sealed its borders preventing trade, communications, as well as any inspectors
* produces 1,000x the greenhouse gases of all other nations combined
* announces that their greenhouse gas output should double each decade
Zachriel Heh. That’s funny. Sort of a very, very slow way to destroy the world. Turns out that most greenhouse emissions are due to development and trade, not lack of development and trade. Your scenario doesn’t make sense and doesn’t exist in the real world.
Thank you for making it clear that you cannot address a hypothetical question directly. Also, thank you for showing how a nation who produces 1,000x the greenhouse gases of all the other nations combined and doubles that output each decade is a “very, very slow way to destroy the world.” This tells me that our current situation warrants the addition of two or three more “very’s” to your sentence, and the benefit of combating climate change drops from “Poor” to “Why the hell even bother?”
- Captain Midnight | 03/13/2013 @ 13:59Captain Midnight: We’ve danced this several times now. The CO2 emissions situation is a tragedy of the commons which means an individual cannot solve the problem, so the individual shouldn’t do anything even try (putting the lie to the carbon credits idea). The only solution is a global centralized authority to regulate every human endeavor.
Individuals certainly can take action, but individual action is not sufficient to address the problem. Nor did we propose ” a global centralized authority to regulate every human endeavor”.
Captain Midnight: Thank you for making it clear that you cannot address a hypothetical question directly.
You proposed a hypothetical with no basis in reality. Emissions grow primarily because of development and trade.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2013 @ 14:20If a rogue nation credibly threatens other nations, they have the right to self-defense. CO2 would not be a credible weapon, though. That’s just silly.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2013 @ 14:23Captain Midnight:
* produces 1,000x the greenhouse gases of all other nations combined
* announces that their greenhouse gas output should double each decade
Well, greenhouse warming would be the least of the world’s worries. Lethal concentrations of CO2 would be reached in about a decade. All humanity would die. Best give Dr. Evil his “one million dollars”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DJtHL3NV1o
On the other hand, it takes a highly developed industrial capacity to produce huge quantities of CO2, and there is probably no ready source of the required quantities of carbon for such a project.
- Zachriel | 03/13/2013 @ 14:45Zachriel Nor did we propose ” a global centralized authority to regulate every human endeavor”.
Earlier I wrote, “Since every human action creates CO2, regulating it or imposing a carbon tax is putting the bureaucratic boot-heel on everyone’s neck.” Since you are in favor of regulating/taxing CO2, you are proposing exactly that.
Not that any of this matters since the severity of climate change has been identified as being exceedingly low. Our time would be better used in discussing issues of greater importance. I hear that First Lady Michelle Obama is going to appear on Vogue for a second time.
- Captain Midnight | 03/13/2013 @ 15:12++snip++
[producing 1000x as much GHG as all other nations combined and promising to double the output every decade is] Sort of a very, very slow way to destroy the world.
++snip++
If a rogue nation credibly threatens other nations, they have the right to self-defense. CO2 would not be a credible weapon, though. That’s just silly.
Hmmmm…
So if I’m reading this right, CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas. ++blink++ No wait, that can’t be it…
- mkfreeberg | 03/13/2013 @ 15:12Captain Midnight: “The only solution is a global centralized authority to regulate every human endeavor.”
Captain Midnight: Earlier I wrote, “Since every human action creates CO2, regulating it or imposing a carbon tax is putting the bureaucratic boot-heel on everyone’s neck.” Since you are in favor of regulating/taxing CO2, you are proposing exactly that.
Lots of problems with your statement. Every human action does not produce excess CO2. People in democratic societies agreeing to impose taxes is not a “boot-heel”. And authority can be distributed, but coordinated.
Captain Midnight: Not that any of this matters since the severity of climate change has been identified as being exceedingly low.
Not by the scientific community.
mkfreeberg: So if I’m reading this right, CO2 is no longer a greenhouse gas.
Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The climate problem is caused by industrialization, not by rogue nations. Nobody burns their limited stock of fossil fuels just to emit CO2. That’s just silly.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2013 @ 04:43Captain Midnight: Earlier I wrote, “Since every human action creates CO2, regulating it or imposing a carbon tax is putting the bureaucratic boot-heel on everyone’s neck.” Since you are in favor of regulating/taxing CO2, you are proposing exactly that.
Zachriel Lots of problems with your statement. Every human action does not produce excess CO2. People in democratic societies agreeing to impose taxes is not a “boot-heel”. And authority can be distributed, but coordinated.
Not that any of this matters since the severity of climate change has been identified as being exceedingly low. Our time would be better used in discussing issues of greater importance. Will Miley Cyrus find true love, now that she and Liam Hemsworth have split up?
- Captain Midnight | 03/14/2013 @ 05:50Captain Midnight: Earlier I wrote
We mentioned several problems with your statement.
Captain Midnight: Not that any of this matters since the severity of climate change has been identified as being exceedingly low.
By whom? On what basis?
- Zachriel | 03/14/2013 @ 06:20I’m just confused, you said it was a very, very slow way to destroy the world, which sounds to me like a weapon. Then you say CO2 is “not a credible weapon.” If I take your previous statement seriously though then it is a weapon, in the same way a suicide-explosive vest is a weapon. Just a very slow one.
Once again, I’m given the impression that your own statements wouldn’t contradict each other so often and so drastically, if you weren’t multiple people sharing accounts. Perhaps y’all need to go off and have a sidebar: Is the CO2 slowly killing us all, or isn’t it? Stop being silly.
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2013 @ 07:20Captain Midnight: Not that any of this matters since the severity of climate change has been identified as being exceedingly low.
Zachriel By whom? On what basis?
By you, not 24 hours ago. When a nation pumping out a thousand times the greenhouse gases as all other nations combined and doubles its output each decade is seen, in your own words, as a “very, very slow way to destroy the world,” then our current situation is three magnitudes less of a concern, so it would be accurate to say our current situation is a “very, very, very, very, very slow way to destroy the world.”
My mom is in her 70s, and she has long had a problem remembering facts. She laughs and calls it “old-timers disease,” but she’s been this way for as long as I remember. She also has a common phrase to excuse her lose of memory: “I’ve slept since then.” She’s used that so often that the grandkids are using it, too. That’s why she writes things down to remember appointments.
So, for someone whose chosen alias is the angel of memory, are you failing to remember things you wrote the day before, or are you a group entity, as mkfreeberg asserts, who can’t bother to read what the others have posted?
- Captain Midnight | 03/14/2013 @ 09:22Captain Midnight: By you, not 24 hours ago. When a nation pumping out a thousand times the greenhouse gases as all other nations combined and doubles its output each decade is seen, in your own words, as a “very, very slow way to destroy the world,” then our current situation is three magnitudes less of a concern, so it would be accurate to say our current situation is a “very, very, very, very, very slow way to destroy the world.”
Sorry, we originally misread your comment, but have already corrected it above.
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/interception/#comment-19156
At that rate, the Earth would be uninhabitable to humans within about a decade.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2013 @ 13:34Yeah, I’m gonna hand-wave against that. This is an unknown. Not even a probability.
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2013 @ 13:36mkfreeberg: Yeah, I’m gonna hand-wave against that.
What is “that”?
- Zachriel | 03/14/2013 @ 14:39Your “Earth would be uninhabitable to humans within about a decade” has a whiff of Danson-itis about it. Hand-waving is a valid rebuttal to talking out one’s butt.
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2013 @ 15:26Humans currently add about 2.5 ppm of CO2 per year to the atmosphere. Emissions immediately increase to 2500 ppm per year, doubling each decade. Current concentration is 400 ppm—and remember it’s a cumulative process. Here it is, year by year:
0.04%
0.29%
0.56%
0.85%
1.15%
1.48%
1.84%
2.22%
2.62%
3.06%
3.52%
4.02%
4.56%
5.13%
5.75%
6.41%
7.12%
7.87%
8.69%
9.56%
10.49%
Concentrations of 1% can cause severe headaches, dizziness, and nausea. Prolonged exposure to concentrations over 4% are dangerous to life and health. Concentrations over 10% are invariably fatal.
Perhaps a few would survive in specially equipped mineshafts. Certain sacrifices might be required for the future of the human race.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2013 @ 15:47http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y
On a sphere with a radius of some four thousand miles, with a living ecosystem on pretty much every square foot of its surface, there’s no CO2 being absorbed by anything?
Across years and decades?
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2013 @ 18:18mkfreeberg: On a sphere with a radius of some four thousand miles, with a living ecosystem on pretty much every square foot of its surface, there’s no CO2 being absorbed by anything?
Sure there is. The current net is 2.5ppm per year. Much of the rest is absorbed by the oceans, with some by increased photosynthesis. With CO2 levels approaching 10%, the oceans would become like seltzer-water. Also, presumably the CO2 is formed by combustion, so atmospheric oxygen content would be depleted by a similar amount. And we haven’t even considered conventional air pollution.
No telling where to get all that carbon, though, so as far as evil schemes go, it’s not very practical.
- Zachriel | 03/14/2013 @ 18:56…the oceans would become like seltzer-water
So you acknowledge the oceans would be absorbing more CO2 than they are today? If so, this is not being factored in to your table.
- mkfreeberg | 03/14/2013 @ 20:12mkfreeberg: So you acknowledge the oceans would be absorbing more CO2 than they are today?
Actually, we have overstated the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. Human emit the equivalent of about 4.4ppm of CO2, but about 60% is presently absorbed by the oceans and biosphere. We assumed this ratio would remain constant, which is, of course, overly optimistic. Plants cannot possibly ramp up 1000+ times their rate of absorption. Also, oceans would become saturated, as well as highly acidic. Furthermore, the oceans would warm, further reducing the rate at which oceans can absorb CO2. Over very long terms, the oceanic carbon would be fixed by geological processes, but, by then, all humanity would be dead—except those in the specially equipped mine-shafts, of course.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2013 @ 03:44Plants cannot possibly ramp up 1000+ times their rate of absorption.
From examining your table, I see an apparent assumption that the plants will not & cannot ramp up their absorption at all.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2013 @ 06:10Zachriel, now that you have wrapped you head around the hypothetical situation, will you finally answer the following question?
- Captain Midnight | 03/15/2013 @ 08:30mkfreeberg: From examining your table, I see an apparent assumption that the plants will not & cannot ramp up their absorption at all.
That is incorrect. The assumption in the table is that the absorption by the oceans and the biosphere increases 1000x, doubling each decade; which, as we said, is overly optimistic.
mkfreeberg: “With that understanding, what do you, Zachriel, absolute monarch of all the world’s nations (except for X, of course), do in this situation?”
Countries, whether democracies or absolute monarchies, have the right to self-defence. We already said this. If a country were spewing enough CO2 to kill the world’s population, they can be stopped with whatever means are necessary. However, it’s a silly hypothetical because such a scenario is beyond plausibility. Why not just go with “frickin’ sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their frickin’ heads”?
- Zachriel | 03/15/2013 @ 10:08The second quote should be attributed to Captain Midnight.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2013 @ 10:09Captain Midnight: “With that understanding, what do you, Zachriel, absolute monarch of all the world’s nations (except for X, of course), do in this situation?”
Zachriel Countries, whether democracies or absolute monarchies, have the right to self-defence. We already said this. If a country were spewing enough CO2 to kill the world’s population, they can be stopped with whatever means are necessary.
You issue passive statements like “Countries have the right to self-defence,” but the question isn’t what countries do, but YOU, as leader of the world, would do. You have proven yourself incapable of taking ownership of the question and answering along the lines of “We/I would…”
Zachriel However, it’s a silly hypothetical because such a scenario is beyond plausibility. Why not just go with “frickin’ sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their frickin’ heads”?
As I said, you have problems with hypothetical questions, both with providing a straightforward answer and with grasping that they exist in their own reality. Hypotheticals don’t have to be rational; they are excellent ways of doing Gedankenexperiment in the comfort of one’s own chair. Carl Sagan uses one starting at the 19 min mark of this episode of Cosmos.[1] Of course, Sagan’s silly hypothetical of the speed of light in the Italian town of Vinci being 40 kmh is beyond plausibility.
[1] No, I don’t expect you to cut into your precious multi-site blogging time with this direct link to a video. The link is for others reading here who are open to the concept of learning something.
- Captain Midnight | 03/15/2013 @ 11:37Captain Midnight: You issue passive statements like “Countries have the right to self-defence,” but the question isn’t what countries do, but YOU, as leader of the world, would do.
Sorry, we don’t do personal hypotheticals, but most any leader would reasonably take whatever actions are necessary to protect their nation. Did you have a point?
- Zachriel | 03/15/2013 @ 12:08Answering what any reasonable leader would do should be a sufficient response to your hypothetical.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2013 @ 12:47Captain Midnight: You issue passive statements like “Countries have the right to self-defence,” but the question isn’t what countries do, but YOU, as leader of the world, would do.
Zachriel Sorry, we don’t do personal hypotheticals…
You could have simply stated such at the onset.
Zachriel but most any leader would reasonably take whatever actions are necessary to protect their nation. Did you have a point?
None that you are willing to address, so don’t let me impede you from your busy posting elsewhere.
- Captain Midnight | 03/15/2013 @ 12:48Captain Midnight: You could have simply stated such at the onset.
We attempted to answer the intent of the question, which was presumably to establish just cause to interfere in the affairs of another country.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2013 @ 12:55That’s helpful. I guess I’ll keep supporting the right to do whatever’s reasonable and necessary to keep our energy industry healthy. Lot of wiggle room there, and no need for me to get more specific.
- Texan99 | 03/15/2013 @ 12:55mkf: From examining your table, I see an apparent assumption that the plants will not & cannot ramp up their absorption at all.
Z: That is incorrect. The assumption in the table is that the absorption by the oceans and the biosphere increases 1000x, doubling each decade; which, as we said, is overly optimistic.
No, I made a spreadsheet that starts with the .25 increase and doubles it every ten rows, so that by row 11 the increase is 0.5. The cells in col. A, rows 1 through 11, match your entries digit-for-digit, as long as I round off to 2 decimal places. My spreadsheet is assuming that every gram of carbon dioxide retained, continues to float around indefinitely, so that must be what yours is doing. If you have some compensatory mechanism in your formulas to account for this, it must not be factoring in the way you think.
I can predict awful consequences for anything living, and be perfectly “scientific” about it, if I proceed from the false premise that a living thing is going to act like a dead thing and fail to trigger its various mechanisms for adjusting. Put me in a room at 75 degrees, it’s a scientific fact that I can’t survive with the core of my body at that temperature, so this would “prove” such an environment is lethal to me. It doesn’t hold up in practice because, as a living organism, I have ways to adjust. The Earth is living too. This is the fundamental flaw of global-warming “science,” it treats the Earth, a living thing, as a dead thing that lacks any devices for adjustment. When in practice, the Earth is absolutely loaded with them.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2013 @ 13:20mkfreeberg: My spreadsheet is assuming that every gram of carbon dioxide retained, continues to float around indefinitely, so that must be what yours is doing.
As we said, we assumed the ratio would remain constant.
Humans emit the equivalent of 0.58ppm. Of that 0.58ppm, 0.33ppm is absorbed by the oceans and biosphere, while 0.25ppm is retained in the atmosphere.
If we multiply by a 1000, that would be 580ppm. Of that 580ppm, 330ppm is absorbed by the oceans and biosphere, while 250ppm is retained in the atmosphere.
So you see that the table is based on a thousand-fold increase in emissions and a thousand-fold increase in absorption, and a thousand-fold net increase in atmospheric CO2.
mkfreeberg: Put me in a room at 75 degrees, it’s a scientific fact that I can’t survive with the core of my body at that temperature, so this would “prove” such an environment is lethal to me
Put a person in an environment with air at 10% CO2, but without breathing apparatus, that person will die.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2013 @ 13:57I see. So there is an equation which you projected out linearly, presuming there are no safeguards kicking in, that are outside of our ability to detect today…a characteristic more-or-less endemic to all living things. Other than projecting the absorption rate linearly, and presuming this is an accurate, even charitable, prediction. That old “future is just as certain as the past” thing again…
Will a person die, if he is put in a 75 degree room with an agreeable mix of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and all the other gases? The human body does need to stay above 75 by a good bit, in order to survive. So would that person die, or would you agree your logic is breaking down a bit here?
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2013 @ 14:18mkfreeberg: So there is an equation which you projected out linearly, presuming there are no safeguards kicking in, that are outside of our ability to detect today…a characteristic more-or-less endemic to all living things.
As we already pointed out, it isn’t plausible for the biosphere to ramp up production by 1000x: sunlight is the limiting factor. But even given that it could, the atmosphere would cease to be breathable due to increased CO2 and decreased O2.
mkfreeberg: Will a person die, if he is put in a 75 degree room with an agreeable mix of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and all the other gases?
Humans can survive in 75°F temperatures. They cannot survive in a 10% CO2 atmosphere.
mkfreeberg: So would that person die, or would you agree your logic is breaking down a bit here?
Not sure what “logic” you are referring to. Humans are endothermic. That has nothing to do with whether they can survive in high CO2 environments.
- Zachriel | 03/15/2013 @ 17:43As the humans live, the Earth is also a living thing.
Your argument becomes one of “Earth becomes a dead thing, if we imagine it to be incapable of adapting to new conditions, as all living things must do.” Or, dead things are incapable of supporting life. To that extent, I agree with your argument.
But the Earth is not a dead thing. It has ways of adapting to a higher concentration of CO2, just as a living human has ways of adapting to a temperature beneath 98.6F.
That is a fact. It is not within the realm of dispute.
- mkfreeberg | 03/15/2013 @ 19:08mkfreeberg: Your argument becomes one of “Earth becomes a dead thing, if we imagine it to be incapable of adapting to new conditions, as all living things must do.”
Huh? Life would presumably adapt, but humans, and many other vertebrates, can’t live when atmospheric CO2 is 10%.
mkfreeberg: But the Earth is not a dead thing. It has ways of adapting to a higher concentration of CO2, just as a living human has ways of adapting to a temperature beneath 98.6F. That is a fact. It is not within the realm of dispute.
That’s called the Gaia Hypothesis, and yes, it is within the realm of dispute. However, you don’t have to invoke scientific woo to understand that life would survive and evolve as it has for billions of years.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2013 @ 06:35Life would presumably adapt, but humans, and many other vertebrates, can’t live when atmospheric CO2 is 10%
Which it might be, as your chart shows — if the Earth is a dead thing. Which it’s not. See, the point is there’s a difference between living and dead things. You could think of it this way: After the guy in the room expires because the CO2 is ten percent, what temperature is his body after an hour, or two, or six. I think there is a phrase to describe that, “assume room temperature.” And, what temperature is the core of his body while he’s still alive?
Twenty-three point six degrees Fahrenheit is quite a difference. Living things, dead things, they’re different. Not in the realm of dispute.
That’s called the Gaia Hypothesis, and yes, it is within the realm of dispute. However, you don’t have to invoke scientific woo to understand that life would survive and evolve as it has for billions of years.
You have to do something else to predict a living thing will behave as a dead thing would: You have to make a mistake.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2013 @ 06:41mkfreeberg: Which it might be, as your chart shows — if the Earth is a dead thing. Which it’s not.
Several problems with your statement:
1. The Gaia hypothesis has very little supporting evidence, and has not been fruitful as a scientific conjecture. Nor is Gaia a well-defined entity.
2. Even if we accept the Gaia hypothesis, that doesn’t mean there are not physical mechanisms involved. For instance, human bodies are kept warm by metabolizing food. Even then, they only work within certain temperature constraints. You have not identified any such mechanisms, and indeed, it doesn’t appear that the biosphere can process even the current amount of CO2 being emitted.
3. Even if we accept the Gaia hypothesis, that doesn’t mean Gaia can’t be harmed.
4. One of Gaia’s mechanisms may be to allow dangerous organisms that pollute the environment to die out.
Finally, pointing to a deus ex machina is just another form of handwaving. It’s not an argument unless you can marshal evidence to support the contention.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2013 @ 09:42It’s not an argument unless you can marshal evidence to support the contention.
Actually, that’s not true. The argument is simply one of noting the meaningful difference between a living thing and a dead thing. Ecosystems live; that is their job. They have working mechanisms within them to return to their desirable state. It’s part of their definition. Calling it deux ex machina, when you get down to it, is the real hand-waving.
To the extent that the global warming political movement is science at all, it relies on a flawed pseudo-science theory that a living ecosystem will reach a certain average temperature and then somehow cross a tipping point and veer out of control. It doesn’t work because it’s not under control anyway, that’s not how living things work, and it isn’t how physics work in this universe.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2013 @ 09:55mkfreeberg: The argument is simply one of noting the meaningful difference between a living thing and a dead thing.
We grant there are meaningful differences between living things and dead things.
mkfreeberg: Ecosystems live; that is their job.
As we said,
1. The Gaia hypothesis has very little supporting evidence, and has not been fruitful as a scientific conjecture. Nor is Gaia a well-defined entity.
We also said,
2. Even if we accept the Gaia hypothesis, that doesn’t mean there are not physical mechanisms involved. For instance, human bodies are kept warm by metabolizing food. Even then, they only work within certain temperature constraints. You have not identified any such mechanisms, and indeed, it doesn’t appear that the biosphere can process even the current amount of CO2 being emitted.
3. Even if we accept the Gaia hypothesis, that doesn’t mean Gaia can’t be harmed.
4. One of Gaia’s mechanisms may be to allow dangerous organisms that pollute the environment to die out.
Finally, pointing to a deus ex machina is just another form of handwaving. It’s not an argument unless you can marshal evidence to support the contention.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2013 @ 11:20You’ve already agreed living things are different than dead things.
And as I’ve said, the entire global warming litany is based on a false premise that a living thing, the Earth’s ecosystem, must behave as a dead thing.
I’m not entirely clear on how you call it “handwaving” when we’ve established 1) these two things are meaningfully different, and 2) the global warming litany is based on the premise of these things behaving the same way.
Actually, as we’ve discussed in another thread, the new theology is based on the idea that objects, as they warm, behave much the same way as a massive object traveling in a linear motion (once it’s established a degree of warming has taken place, the next degree or two of warming is somehow an inevitability). This is what I mean by “how physics work in this universe”: If a thing warms, it isn’t exactly a done-deal that even more warming will ensue. But leaving that aside: Self-regulation of temperature is a characteristic to many living things. This applies to the ecosystems in which they live. It does not apply to dead things.
The global warming chicanery is based on a false premise that the Earth’s ecosystem has no devices for self-regulation, or that they will somehow be defeated. Not sure how I’m supposed to provide proof for that, it’s something intrinsic to the argument itself. I understand how those promoting it, would prefer we not pay any attention to that. But it isn’t “hand waving” to notice it. If anything, it’s “hand waving” to discourage or distract people from noticing it.
Thing I Know #415. No practical or effective thinking can proceed from a fundamental confusion of a thing with its opposite.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2013 @ 11:29mkfreeberg: And as I’ve said, the entire global warming litany is based on a false premise that a living thing, the Earth’s ecosystem, must behave as a dead thing.
It’s not entirely clear that the Earth’s ecosystem constitutes a singular living entity. It’s worth mentioning that the Earth has lurched from periods of extensive ice caps to periods of no ice caps. There was even a period when all or most of the globe was completely covered in ice. That’s hardly an exemplar of a homeostatic system.
mkfreeberg: I’m not entirely clear on how you call it “handwaving” when we’ve established 1) these two things are meaningfully different,
Because you merely assert rather than show or demonstrate. You haven’t addressed our other points either.
mkfreeberg: and 2) the global warming litany is based on the premise of these things behaving the same way.
Climate theory is mechanistic, not a simple extrapolation. For that matter, so are biology and ecology.
mkfreeberg: The global warming chicanery is based on a false premise that the Earth’s ecosystem has no devices for self-regulation, or that they will somehow be defeated.
This is the deus ex machina. Without evidence whatsoever you claim that the Earth’s biosphere has homeostasic mechanisms of such sufficiency as to respond to the scenario presented. Furthermore, organisms die, while species and ecosystems go extinct.
Try responding to our points this time.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2013 @ 13:13It’s not entirely clear that the Earth’s ecosystem constitutes a singular living entity. It’s worth mentioning that the Earth has lurched from periods of extensive ice caps to periods of no ice caps. There was even a period when all or most of the globe was completely covered in ice. That’s hardly an exemplar of a homeostatic system.
Didn’t say singular, and it wouldn’t matter if that was part of my argument or not. Didn’t say homeostatic, or any kind of static. Indeed, change is part of the characteristics applying to living things. They go through transformations. They experience change from within, even if it doesn’t occur from without. Contrasted with that, a dead thing that used to be alive is no different from any inanimate object. Stick a dead body in a big oven, turn it to 230 degrees, we don’t need to speculate on what its internal temperature will be after a few minutes of that. Stick a rock in the same oven, same result. Put them both in the 75 degree room, again, it’s the same result. A living thing self-regulates. Earth’s ecosystem is a living thing. Evidence of self-regulation? There is evaporation. There is condensation. There is photosynthesis. To coin a phrase, “the science is settled” on all these things.
Now if you stick a living person in a big oven and turn it to 230, sure, his internal core will heat to 230 just like that of a dead thing. But, by that point, he’ll be dead. So no, it’s not hand waving, there’s a lot of evidence to present to support this. Not a lot of research, because it isn’t within question. Living things self-regulate, that’s what they do.
Without evidence whatsoever you claim that the Earth’s biosphere has homeostasic mechanisms of such sufficiency as to respond to the scenario presented. Furthermore, organisms die, while species and ecosystems go extinct. Try responding to our points this time.
I did. And I said before, for this and a number of other reasons, I don’t consider global warming science to be science. I think it’s a political movement. In real science, if someone says “Hey wait a minute, there’s a flaw in the theory because you’re treating a living thing as a dead thing” that should be a complete show-stopper. Just like, in computer science, if you say “I don’t think your algorithm will work because you’re treating boost::uint64_t as a boost::uint32_t,” this would merit some kind of a response, either “we’ve accounted for that, over here” or “oops, you’re right, we’ll look into it.” In real science, it isn’t forgivable to treat things as other things that are different from what those things are.
In politics, though, it IS forgivable. In fact, on the left side, it is expected because that is a consistent trope in left-wing political movements: Our effort, here, is the very first foray by anyone in humankind, ever, to try to regulate what we want to have regulated. If this is a demonstrable falsehood, then deny, deny, deny, and continue to insist that ObamaCare is the first time anyone’s tried to make medical products & services affordable, or the latest minimum wage hike is the very first time anyone ever tried to elevate the standard of living for the poor. Left-wing politics are all about pretending that regulated things are entirely unrelated, and today’s the day we’re going to start regulating them. Global warming is just an extension of that.
No, it isn’t science. Some of the efforts to make it look like that, though, are pretty entertaining.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2013 @ 14:24mkfreeberg: Didn’t say homeostatic, or any kind of static.
Living organisms are entities which are capable of homeostasis.
mkfreeberg: Stick a dead body in a big oven, turn it to 230 degrees, we don’t need to speculate on what its internal temperature will be after a few minutes of that.
Stick a living person into an oven, and the result will be much the same. Even if we accept the Gaia hypothesis, that doesn’t mean Gaia can’t be harmed.
mkfreeberg: Didn’t say singular … Earth’s ecosystem is a living thing.
You just used the singular.
mkfreeberg: Evidence of self-regulation? There is evaporation. There is condensation. There is photosynthesis. To coin a phrase, “the science is settled” on all these things.
There is evaporation. That doesn’t make the biosphere a self-regulating “living thing”.
You never addressed our points. Try responding to them one at a time.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2013 @ 15:03There is evaporation. That doesn’t make the biosphere a self-regulating “living thing”.
You wish to contest the science that says evaporation is a cooling process?
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2013 @ 15:10mkfreeberg: You wish to contest the science that says evaporation is a cooling process?
And condensation of water is exothermic. To remind you, heat only leaves Earth radiatively.
This counteracts a 250ppm annual increase of CO2 and a similar decrease in O2 how exactly?
- Zachriel | 03/16/2013 @ 16:53This counteracts a 250ppm annual increase of CO2 and a similar decrease in O2 how exactly?
You have projected the regulatory mechanisms out in a linear equation, and essentially asked all of us paying attention to accept that these regulatory mechanisms. are being exceeded and defeated in these future scenarios you are conjuring up.
Putting it more concisely — you are “hand waving” while accusing all contrary opinions as engaging in hand waving.
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2013 @ 16:56mkfreeberg: You have projected the regulatory mechanisms out in a linear equation, and essentially asked all of us paying attention to accept that these regulatory mechanisms. are being exceeded and defeated in these future scenarios you are conjuring up.
Gobbledygook. Please state what mechanism is involved that counteracts a 250ppm annual increase of CO2 and a similar decrease in O2? Clue: It’s not evaporation.
You have yet to respond to the points we raised above.
- Zachriel | 03/16/2013 @ 18:44So you wish to contest the science that says evaporation is a cooling process?
- mkfreeberg | 03/16/2013 @ 21:52mkfreeberg: So you wish to contest the science that says evaporation is a cooling process?
How does evaporation counteract a 250ppm annual increase of CO2?
- Zachriel | 03/17/2013 @ 06:26mkfreeberg: So you wish to contest the science that says evaporation is a cooling process?
So you wish to contest the science that says condensation is a warming process?
- Zachriel | 03/17/2013 @ 06:42How does evaporation counteract a 250ppm annual increase of CO2?
Not completely, no. So, you feel it will be all accurate and science-y to discard it entirely, along with photosynthesis?
So you wish to contest the science that says condensation is a warming process?
No, I don’t. Do you wish to contest the observation that living things tend to self-regulate their temperature, along with other metrics that affect their ability to survive?
Because if you don’t, then that would mean these side-trails you’re raising are all “gobbledygook.”
- mkfreeberg | 03/17/2013 @ 07:20Zachriel: How does evaporation counteract a 250ppm annual increase of CO2?
mkfreeberg: Not completely, no.
We asked how? What is the mechanism by which evaporation counteracts a 250ppm annual increase of CO2? Can you provide any quantification?
- Zachriel | 03/17/2013 @ 12:11I could, but it really doesn’t matter. The point is that living things do what life itself does: Fight for self-preservation. The global warming chicanery works as politics, not science, because it expects behavior out of living things consistent with behavior that can only be found in inanimate objects, and dead things.
It isn’t a trivial error. 98.6 minus 75 is 23.6; a living human can sit in a 75 degree room pretty much indefinitely, comfortably, maintaining his body core at the higher temperature with little to no metabolic effort. With just a bit of discomfort and additional effort, he can do the same in a much higher temperature than 98.6. Earth’s ecosystem can be reasonably expected to do likewise. It is a living thing, not a dead thing, like any other ecosystem with living things in it.
The global warming chicanery works as a political movement, but not as science. In political movements it is forgivable to confuse things with other things that are different. Just make sure you WIN when it’s all over; those are the rules. Science has different rules. Like — when someone points out your argument has an error, you ‘fess up and say “oh dear, well perhaps if I do it correctly I will produce the same results, but I’d better go off somewhere and do that, to make sure, before I bother anybody with it anymore.” Rather than peppering them with questions about how evaporation works.
Politics. Science. Those two are different. They are not the same. Living things, dead things. Those two are also different.
- mkfreeberg | 03/17/2013 @ 12:53mkfreeberg: It isn’t a trivial error. 98.6 minus 75 is 23.6; a living human can sit in a 75 degree room pretty much indefinitely, comfortably, maintaining his body core at the higher temperature with little to no metabolic effort.
There’s a mechanism involved, and it requires fuel. Furthermore, if not within a certain range, then the body cannot maintain its temperature. The analogous question then is the degree to which the Earth’s climate can be perturbed without significant changes occurring. In this case, 1000+ times the current rate of CO2 emissions.
Zachriel: We asked how? What is the mechanism by which evaporation counteracts a 250ppm annual increase of CO2? Can you provide any quantification?
mkfreeberg: I could, but it really doesn’t matter.
Heh, that’s funny. Must be a secret.
Do you really think that people will find secret things in your head make for a persuasive argument. You might try to actually address our points. Or perhaps you already did—in your mind.
1. The Gaia hypothesis has very little supporting evidence, and has not been fruitful as a scientific conjecture. Nor is Gaia a well-defined entity. Furthermore, there is strong historical evidence that the Earth’s climate is not stable, but teeters between extremes of hot and cold.
2. Even if we accept the Gaia hypothesis, that doesn’t mean there are not physical mechanisms involved. For instance, human bodies are kept warm by metabolizing food. Even then, they only work within certain temperature constraints. You have not identified any such mechanisms, and indeed, it doesn’t appear that the biosphere can process even the current amount of CO2 being emitted.
3. Even if we accept the Gaia hypothesis, that doesn’t mean Gaia can’t be harmed. Organisms die; species go extinct; ecosystems disappear.
4. One of Gaia’s mechanisms may be to allow dangerous organisms that pollute the environment to die out.
- Zachriel | 03/17/2013 @ 16:35Do you really think that people will find secret things in your head make for a persuasive argument. You might try to actually address our points. Or perhaps you already did—in your mind.
Just as, in your mind, it’s fair to use a derogative label like “Gaia hypothesis” on the very well-founded idea that living things go through processes, like circulation, perspiration, salivation, hyperventilation, et al to regulate their temperature. It’s what life does. I’m not sure how to treat a challenge to something that’s so well-established.
So let’s just agree to this: This brand of “science” you seek to peddle, relies on the idea that a living thing can be fairly and accurately treated as a dead thing. We can make these models that operate from a presumption that there’s no difference between how living things & dead things respond to a change in their environments. In other words, to accept your prognostications of doom, we MUST deny that living things have the ability to self-regulate…no matter what the evidence tells us. Fair enough?
- mkfreeberg | 03/17/2013 @ 17:08mkfreeberg: Just as, in your mind, it’s fair to use a derogative label like “Gaia hypothesis”
It’s not derogatory. That’s the name of the hypothesis. It could be true, though there is no significant evidence supporting the contention, some evidence contradicting it, and it has not been particularly scientifically fruitful even as a notion.
In any case, part of our argument that you ignored included accepting the Gaia hypothesis arguendo.
mkfreeberg: I’m not sure how to treat a challenge to something that’s so well-established.
But it hasn’t been shown that the biosphere acts like a living, self-regulating entity. In any case, living things die. They can be killed.
It’s telling that you never responded to the points we raised.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2013 @ 06:14But it hasn’t been shown that the biosphere acts like a living, self-regulating entity. In any case, living things die. They can be killed.
Very true. And it’s entirely unnecessary to festoon your statement with a name ending in “hypothesis,” to imply that there has to be some kind of “evidence” to support it which has yet to be forthcoming. That would be absurd. Death and taxes, and all that. Living things die.
Equally true that, while those living things are here, they do self-regulate.
The real Gaia hypothesis, according to Wikipedia, says more than just that:
Now it’s not clear from that, if the intent is to say “life as we know it” or “life as it currently exists.” That is certainly outside of my meaning here. It would contradict the theory of evolution. I’m simply maintaining that there is no apocalypse coming. That is different from proffering that the environment has a “Gaia”-like consciousness and is trying to make everything comfy. Things do move around. Species go extinct. Instances of those species die off.
But, the self-regulation of these metrics, is part of what life does. That’s not Gaia hypothesis, that’s just describing a characteristic of life itself. If it’s too cold, it tries to warm up…and succeeds…if it’s too warm, it tries to cool off. And succeeds. It’s what life does. How did Mr. Goldblum put it…
…except I’m not talking about lesbian dinosaurs laying eggs. I’m talking about not meeting up with a cataclysm just because the thermometer reading goes up by a couple of degrees.
You say it’s telling that I never responded to some points you have in mind…not sure what that’s about. But, I find it telling that you’re trying to take something that is just common sense, that raises significant flaws in your argument, something as fundamentally self-evident as “living things do not respond to environmental changes the same way dead things do,” and rather than address it you try to couch it as a “hypothesis” that has to be proven in some way.
How did Dilbert put it…this is the part where you agree with me, and we both get on with our lives. If this was science, that would be the situation: Living things adapt, which has a directly unsettling effect on your claim that Earth’s climate is about to clip out of some kind of quote-unquote “control.” It is a direct assault against this business of creating models to predict future climate change scenarios. It creates uncertainty in something which your science treats as a near certainty. Genuine “science” would seek to directly address it, rather than coming up with excuses for sidestepping it. But, I suppose your pseudo-science has such a good track record with the predictions already made, that it isn’t necessary to show any scientific discipline anymore…
Oh…wait…
mkfreeberg: Very true. And it’s entirely unnecessary to festoon your statement with a name ending in “hypothesis,” to imply that there has to be some kind of “evidence” to support it which has yet to be forthcoming.
You claimed the Earth was a “living thing”. Of course the Gaia hypothesis is a hypothesis, and it has to be supported like any other.
mkfreeberg: Very true. And it’s entirely unnecessary to festoon your statement with a name ending in “hypothesis,” to imply that there has to be some kind of “evidence” to support it which has yet to be forthcoming.
What you said was that if CO2 emissions were raised 1000+ times, that something would compensate, but you won’t say how, except to wave your hand at evaporation.
mkfreeberg: Oh…wait…
Not sure the pedigree of your chart, but you can see a clear warming trend, and the black line is still within the error bars.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2013 @ 08:57mkfreeberg: “Life finds a way”
Life would survive even if CO2 emissions were raised 1000+ times. However, the vast majority of humans would die out, except those in specially equipped mine-shafts.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2013 @ 09:00You claimed the Earth was a “living thing”.
You’re claiming it’s a dead thing?
Again, your science seems to rely on this. Are you now coming out and saying that’s what you think?
Not sure the pedigree of your chart…
It’s sourced. You’re welcome to follow that sourcing and make it known if you find something has not been presented accurately.
Life would survive even if CO2 emissions were raised 1000+ times. However, the vast majority of humans would die out, except those in specially equipped mine-shafts.
While they live, they self-regulate.
This is not complicated, and it’s not Gia hypothesis. Living things self-regulate, dead things do not. It’s like me standing behind you and saying “that code will not compile, you’re missing a semicolon.” To turn around and say: Oh yeah? Cite your sources, present your evidence!, would be about as silly in that scenario, as it is here. Different things are different; their behaviors are not to be credibly predicted as the same.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2013 @ 10:14mkfreeberg: You’re claiming it’s a dead thing?
The Earth is composed of living and non-living things.
mkfreeberg: This is not complicated, and it’s not Gia hypothesis.
Hmm. You seemed to be saying that the Earth is “a self-regulating, complex system that contributes to maintaining the conditions for life on the planet.” Let’s call “Earth as a living thing” hypothesis, the ELT hypothesis.
mkfreeberg: While they live, they self-regulate.
1. The ELT hypothesis has very little supporting evidence, and you have yet to show where it has been fruitful as a scientific conjecture. There is strong historical evidence that the Earth’s climate is not stable, but teeters between extremes of hot and cold.
2. Even if we accept the ELT hypothesis, that doesn’t mean there are not physical mechanisms involved. For instance, human bodies are kept warm by metabolizing food. Even then, they only work within certain temperature constraints. You have not identified any such mechanisms, and indeed, it doesn’t appear that the biosphere can process even the current amount of CO2 being emitted.
3. Even if we accept the ELT hypothesis, that doesn’t mean ELT can’t be harmed. Organisms die; species go extinct; ecosystems disappear.
4. One of ELT’s mechanisms may be to allow dangerous organisms that pollute the environment to die out.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2013 @ 10:44Think you’re confusing “stable” with “static,” there.
Earth is full of things that produce counterbalances in response to extremes. The flora consume carbon from the atmosphere and produce oxygen, the fauna do the reverse, both tend to become more plentiful when they enjoy a greater abundance of what they need. The natural result of this is going to be an environment that tends toward a happy medium. This is just a matter of logic and common sense. But you demand “evidence” or something…complain in your bullet point #1 “has very little supporting evidence,” which isn’t correct, but let’s assume it is. What part of it is to be subjected to dispute?
…it doesn’t appear that the biosphere can process even the current amount of CO2 being emitted.
If not, life will adapt. At ten percent, we’re in trouble? That’s a hundred thousand ppm? And we’re at 400 now? Mkay, so we’re on an uptick, that’s probably fine. Again, you’re confusing “stable” with “static.” Life itself is dynamic, by nature. But it continues on. What, now you want to see evidence that living things exist?
The central question here is: Under the “thousand times and doubling every decade” scenario above, or any other, will the net saturation of CO2 spring out and away from the ecosystem’s ability to absorb it. You account for the absorption by vegetation by simply projecting it on a linear basis, and calling it good. Well, you may be right about it, but the method of thinking is rather cavalier and careless, given that this is the CENTRAL question.
It all comes down to, predictive models being formed on the basis that living things behave like dead things. It’s a flaw. Science has to admit its flaws; politics has to hide its flaws. Further support that this is a political movement, in scientific-effort clothing.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2013 @ 10:59mkfreeberg: Think you’re confusing “stable” with “static,” there.
Static does not characterize dynamical systems.
mkfreeberg: Earth is full of things that produce counterbalances in response to extremes.
Sure.
mkfreeberg: What part of it is to be subjected to dispute?
A simple example is how the Earth has historically teetered between climate extremes.
mkfreeberg: If not, life will adapt.
Sure it will, but that wasn’t the question. It was what would happen to humans. Most will die.
mkfreeberg: That’s a hundred thousand ppm? And we’re at 400 now?
It was Captain Midnight’s scenario. We originally took it as a qualitative big number, but he insisted we consider it more closely. We did, and that led to the result that it would lead to the death of billions of humans. That is more than enough justification for other nations to take whatever actions they need to stop it.
mkfreeberg: You account for the absorption by vegetation by simply projecting it on a linear basis, and calling it good.
No. We called it grossly optimistic.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2013 @ 11:34mkfreeberg: What part of it is to be subjected to dispute?
Z: A simple example is how the Earth has historically teetered between climate extremes.
Alright, well a “teetering” implies a teeter totter, which of course moves around a central axis, a “normal.” So it seems we agree. We disagree in your confusion between “stable” and “static.” Life moves. Living things move. Nobody said they shouldn’t.
No. We called it grossly optimistic.
Right. You’re making the mistake of qualifying an unknown as a known. In science, this is not permissible. Meanwhile, you’re demanding evidence that living things have ways of regulating themselves that dead things do not have…or, that the Earth’s ecosystem should be characterized as a living thing and not a dead thing…or…something. I dunno. Seems to me, it’s much simpler to admit that you’re presuming this living ecosystem will respond to a change the way a dead thing would, and this is wrong. Just put the semicolon where it belongs and hit the compile button again.
But, of course, it feels so gosh darn science-y to say things like “you have no presented no evidence” or “you have not identified any mechanisms.” It seems, somewhere before the science classes, you’ve taken a course in philosophy that has not served you well. When you have to pretend different things are practically the same, in order for your theory to come out right, it’s time to let it go.
- mkfreeberg | 03/18/2013 @ 12:07mkfreeberg: Alright, well a “teetering” implies a teeter totter, which of course moves around a central axis, a “normal.” So it seems we agree. We disagree in your confusion between “stable” and “static.” Life moves. Living things move. Nobody said they shouldn’t.
Well, teetering between periods with no ice caps to periods when all or nearly all the planet was covered in ice for millions of years is hardly conducive to the notion of stability. There are both positive and negative feedbacks that operate over differing periods. This results in chaotic behavior, not homeostasis.
mkfreeberg: You’re making the mistake of qualifying an unknown as a known.
The amount of carbon the biosphere can fix is limited by the available sunlight. You can’t ramp this up 1000+ times. Geological processes slowly remove CO2, but this takes thousands of years. We also know that the ecosystem can’t even keep up with current emissions, otherwise, atmospheric CO2 wouldn’t continue to increase.
mkfreeberg: Seems to me, it’s much simpler to admit that you’re presuming this living ecosystem will respond to a change the way a dead thing would, and this is wrong.
We’re willing to consider any and all mechanisms. You have given no reason to change our position.
- Zachriel | 03/18/2013 @ 12:16We also know that the ecosystem can’t even keep up with current emissions, otherwise, atmospheric CO2 wouldn’t continue to increase.
That’s a careless conclusion, since we know it takes the ecosystem much longer to adapt to new compositions within it, than it takes for the carbon to enter the atmosphere. We also know that when the switch is flipped on this “life finds a way” thing, it has to be a matter of some significance. Core body temperature is rather delicate; if that’s off by a bit, you get sick, or at least are going to be very uncomfortable. Carbon saturation of 400ppm versus 350, or 450 isn’t like that. Except to alwarmists who view it as a sign of alarm…as they continue to work over their
sciencepolitical agitation. Why isn’t the environment mopping it all up? Maybe it can’t, or maybe it just doesn’t feel like it. There’s been a lot of teetering to your totter over the eons. Life has adapted. Humans have adapted. Life is resilient.We’re willing to consider any and all mechanisms. You have given no reason to change our position.
When it’s pointed out to you that two things you’re treating the same, are really different, and this gives you “no reason to change our position,” this says a lot more about your reasoning processes than it says about what I’ve given you.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 07:37mkfreeberg: That’s a careless conclusion, since we know it takes the ecosystem much longer to adapt to new compositions within it, than it takes for the carbon to enter the atmosphere.
Which means, under Captain Midnight’s scenario, the vast majority of humans would be dead before the atmospheric CO2 is processed.
mkfreeberg: We also know that when the switch is flipped on this “life finds a way” thing, it has to be a matter of some significance.
Life won’t have any problem surviving Captain Midnight’s scenario. Cockroaches shall inherit the Earth.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2013 @ 07:58Actually, under Capt. Midnight’s scenario, the emissions double every decade.
And under your projection of this, it took some twenty years to approach the lethal combination. Your reasoning process relies on arbitrarily producing a known from an unknown, resulting in what we might call a “pseudo-known” for your pseudo-science.
So let us agree on this: You have a methodology for computing that human activity is on the way toward making the environment inhospitable to us. This methodology relies on a special brand of science, which some consider to be a pseudo-science but you consider to be somehow reliable; and in this special brand of science, it is forgivable to predict behavior in things KNOWN to possess characteristics entirely different from what your predictions presume they will be showing. I say, you’re presuming living things will act as dead things, but the living/dead isn’t really the important thing, it’s that you’re presuming entirely different things will behave in similar ways.
This is key to the theories you wish to present, under the heading of “science.” We disagree about whether it should be called that.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 08:08mkfreeberg: Actually, under Capt. Midnight’s scenario, the emissions double every decade.
They multiply a thousand-fold the first year.
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/interception/#comment-19151
mkfreeberg: And under your projection of this, it took some twenty years to approach the lethal combination.
People would start dying sooner than that, the old and weak. Others would suffer a slower death. At twenty years, the Earth would be uninhabitable for humans, except those in the mine-shaft with Dr. Strangelove. Cockroaches are another story.
In any case, you have repeatedly refused to answer our points, and have never provided a plausible mechanism by which humanity wouldn’t be asphyxiated.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2013 @ 08:14They multiply a thousand-fold the first year.
Fektoid. True, and entirely irrelevant to my point.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 08:22In any case, you have repeatedly refused to answer our points…
Your points assume, erroneously, that the flaw in your reasoning I’ve pointed out to you has something to do with the “Gaia hypothesis.” This has already been addressed.
Also, when a flaw in your reasoning is pointed out and the flaw has to do with something so fundamental as two different things being treated the same way, “you have not addressed our points” is not a sufficient counter-rebuttal. I’m wondering, did you learn somewhere that this is the case?
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 08:46mkfreeberg: True, and entirely irrelevant to my point.
This entire sub-discussion concerns the survivability of Captain Midnight’s scenario, so of course it matters. This shows how difficult it seems to be for you to admit to anything. CO2 in high concentrations is immediately fatal to humans. There is no mechanism to absorb such quantities of CO2 before all humans are dead—excepting Dr. Strangelove and his 10-1 ratio.
In any case, you have repeatedly refused to answer our points, and have never provided a plausible mechanism by which humanity wouldn’t be asphyxiated.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2013 @ 09:45This shows how difficult it seems to be for you to admit to anything.
It’s difficult to get me to treat an unknown as a known. At least, I hope it is. That would be a good thing.
In any case, you have repeatedly refused to answer our points…
Not much importance to getting the deck chairs arranged on the Titanic. Your “points” are based on a premise I have already shown to be flawed, so in that sense they’ve been addressed soundly.
Your methodology and your theories depend on treating dissimilar things as if they were similar things, and on treating unknowns as if they were known. As I have already made clear to you, the nervous-tic rebuttal of “you have failed to address our points” is a wholly inadequate response, and isn’t even accurate.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 10:42mkfreeberg: It’s difficult to get me to treat an unknown as a known.
The scenario is a given. The basic science is known more than well enough. You simply point out that there could be something unknown, a deus ex machina, but can’t provide anything other than air.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2013 @ 14:11The scenario is a given. The basic science is known more than well enough.
From what I can tell thus far, those two sentences would form a perfectly reasonable summary of this special brand of “science” you’re bandying about. It doesn’t seem to put much energy into showing skepticism toward or questioning much of anything, save for whatever happens along to pose its own questions that are unwelcome.
If Eratosthenes had made his well-measurements using your brand of science, he’d have to conclude all the measuring devices in Alexandria were busted by seven degrees. Your average drunk down at the Alexandria watering hole would be able to make better sense out of it than he could. “Don’t you see, Eratosthenes, you’ve just proven the Earth is round!” “No, the flat earth is a given. The basic science is known more than well enough. And you HAVEN’T responded to any of my points! Bartender, another ale please!”
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 14:36mkfreeberg: It doesn’t seem to put much energy into showing skepticism toward or questioning much of anything, save for whatever happens along to pose its own questions that are unwelcome.
As we have said repeatedly, we are more than willing to consider any evidence or proposed mechanism that would change our conclusion. You have yet to provide any evidence or propose any plausible mechanism.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2013 @ 15:19I have correctly identified one of your supposed knowns, as an unknown. To provide support for that, I have correctly pointed out that living things do not behave as dead things. And, only in very rare cases (happenstance) behave as things that can be projected on a graph in any linear way.
That should be more than sufficient to at least call your known into question, for reclassification as an unknown. If we’re dealing with real science here. Which, I’ve maintained for awhile, we’re not.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 15:41mkfreeberg: I have correctly identified one of your supposed knowns, as an unknown. To provide support for that, I have correctly pointed out that living things do not behave as dead things.
To which we responded,
Let’s call “Earth as a living thing” hypothesis, the ELT hypothesis.
1. The ELT hypothesis has very little supporting evidence, and you have yet to show where it has been fruitful as a scientific conjecture. There is strong historical evidence that the Earth’s climate is not stable, but teeters between extremes of hot and cold.
2. Even if we accept the ELT hypothesis, that doesn’t mean there are not physical mechanisms involved. For instance, human bodies are kept warm by metabolizing food. Even then, they only work within certain temperature constraints. You have not identified any such mechanisms or constraints, and indeed, it doesn’t appear that the biosphere can process even the current amount of CO2 being emitted.
3. Even if we accept the ELT hypothesis, that doesn’t mean ELT can’t be harmed. Organisms die; species go extinct; ecosystems disappear.
4. One of ELT’s mechanisms may be to allow dangerous organisms that pollute the environment to die out.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2013 @ 15:59If we are trying to make use of real science, it would be more proper to think of your theory as the EDT hypothesis.
Can you provide evidence that its behavior has been predictable, to the degree that you’re assuming it is? The graphic I posted, above, would seem to pose a few problems for this.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 16:05mkfreeberg: Can you provide evidence that its behavior has been predictable, to the degree that you’re assuming it is?
As we have already stated, if you add that much CO2 to the atmosphere, there’s no natural mechanism which can remove it fast enough to keep it from accumulating in the atmosphere. Simply waving your hands and saying there might be something somewhere somehow that would change the situation is not an argument.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2013 @ 17:45Pointing out “you don’t know that” is not hand-waving.
In science, it is very important to separate what you know from what you don’t know.
Of course, we’ve already established that this thing you call “science” is a very different thing. In your brand, it is quite alright to pretend you know things you don’t really know. I think Ronald Reagan said something about that.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 17:54Mkfreeberg: Pointing out “you don’t know that” is not hand-waving
Sure it is, if you repeatedly refuse to provide any basis for your claim. We know enough to know that the posited quantities of CO2 can’t be scrubbed fast enough to prevent asphyxiation.
The nice thing about hand waving is that you can use it for everything. All knowledge is limited, so you can always claim there is something which will somehow someway change the result. That’s not an argument, but solipsism.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2013 @ 18:35The nice thing about hand waving is that you can use it for everything. All knowledge is limited, so you can always claim there is something which will somehow someway change the result. That’s not an argument, but solipsism.
So your special brand of science approves of pretending you know things you don’t really know. Glad we cleared that up.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 18:40And that’s called a straw man.
Our contention is that we have more than sufficient knowledge to understand that there is no plausible mechanism to remove the posited quantity of CO2. We have discussed this above. We have offered to consider any evidence or mechanisms you might put forth. Instead, your argument is that there could be something unaccounted for. Perhaps. We would be happy to entertain any evidence you might bring to the discussion.
- Zachriel | 03/19/2013 @ 18:46And that’s called a straw man. Our contention is that we have more than sufficient knowledge to understand that there is no plausible mechanism to remove the posited quantity of CO2.
Right. We agree. You’re ready to rule it out. Entirely. Without a single shred of residual uncertainty.
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”
I just say, let’s stop calling this science. Or if we are to persist in that, let’s put scare quotes around “science.” In real science, there is a meaningful difference between what you do & do not know.
- mkfreeberg | 03/19/2013 @ 19:00mkfreeberg: You’re ready to rule it out. Entirely. Without a single shred of residual uncertainty.
Which, of course, is another strawman. All scientific knowledge is tentative and incomplete. The difference is that we have provided support for our position, while you have provided no support for your position, except to point out that there is always uncertainty.
Try responding to the points we raised above.
- Zachriel | 03/20/2013 @ 05:08mkfreeberg: You’re ready to rule it out. Entirely. Without a single shred of residual uncertainty.
We’re more than willing to reconsider our position. You have to provide reasons that are more substantial than the argument we provided above.
- Zachriel | 03/20/2013 @ 05:50We’re more than willing to reconsider our position. You have to provide reasons that are more substantial than the argument we provided above.
Which should not be necessary. The issue, to be precise about it, is not quite so much reconsidering your position, it’s recognizing an unknown as what it truly is, an unknown. Something you refuse to do. And the question isn’t, how lethal is carbon after such-and-such an amount of time, but rather, how sure can we be about this? Given that then, your hobby-store grade of methodology for dealing with uncertainties, isn’t up to the challenge. Which, again, has more to do with convincing me of your viewpoint, than with me convincing you of mine.
We arrive here at one of the fundamental flaws in all leftist thinking: The stated objective, at least since All In The Family, and arguably before that by a good stretch, is to be capable of learning something new — to be more open-minded than Archie Bunker. This is attempted by all sorts of arbitrary rules, mostly pulled out of thin air, on the spot, on a whim (“you have to have a global test,” not peer reviewed, you have to be white to be racist, et al) to declare some datum, some point made by others, that might open something to question, as contraband and unfit for further consideration.
The method is contrary to the stated goal. All learning begins with three words: “I don’t know.” You have to admit you don’t know something, before you can learn it. Modern liberalism constantly works against this, by pretending unknowns are really knowns.
There are many examples to be offered. Any time a liberal proposes a solution that has to do with giving more power to Big Government, and the floor is opened to question-and-answer, we get to see the process repeated anew, unavoidably. This is just one of the best examples of it I’ve seen. You “know,” not only are we dead when CO2 reaches the stated saturation point, but in 22 years or less in the above scenario, we’ll be there. Now, I’ll agree to the first, and I’ll agree the second is certainly possible. Agreement from all attending, is a far cry from being able to declare a known. Point is, in science, that’s an important thing. In what you call “science,” it is a trivial thing.
By the way, we went down that road in the first place because of how you were describing Captain Midnight’s hypothetical, which he posed to get a “what would you do if you were running everything” answer out of you. I’ll leave it to him to say if that ever satisfactorily happened or not, but I’m not inclined to believe this is the case. If not, your privileges for playing the “you have yet to respond to our points” card are not in force at the present time.
- mkfreeberg | 03/20/2013 @ 06:30mkfreeberg: Which should not be necessary. The issue, to be precise about it, is not quite so much reconsidering your position, it’s recognizing an unknown as what it truly is, an unknown.
But it is not a complete unknown. We know a lot about the carbon cycle. So to counter our position, you have to actually, like, provide an alternative explanation and evidence of support.
- Zachriel | 03/20/2013 @ 06:36mkfreeberg By the way, we went down that road in the first place because of how you were describing Captain Midnight’s hypothetical, which he posed to get a “what would you do if you were running everything” answer out of you. I’ll leave it to him to say if that ever satisfactorily happened or not, but I’m not inclined to believe this is the case. If not, your privileges for playing the “you have yet to respond to our points” card are not in force at the present time.
The response I got, after many attempts to get there, was “Sorry, we don’t do personal hypotheticals,” so, no, there wasn’t a satisfactory response to the point. I laughed out loud when Zachriel first wrote, “Try responding to our points this time,” since there are many things that Zachriel lets go unaddressed.
“Kettle, come in, Kettle. This is Pot. You are black. Over.”
- Captain Midnight | 03/20/2013 @ 06:42Captain Midnight: The response I got, after many attempts to get there, was “Sorry, we don’t do personal hypotheticals,” so, no, there wasn’t a satisfactory response to the point.
What we would personally do or not do has no impact on the science.
- Zachriel | 03/20/2013 @ 07:58“Science”TM.
- mkfreeberg | 03/20/2013 @ 09:06Captain Midnight: The response I got, after many attempts to get there, was “Sorry, we don’t do personal hypotheticals,” so, no, there wasn’t a satisfactory response to the point.
Zachriel What we would personally do or not do has no impact on the science.
That *klunk* I just heard is the sound of a mind slammed shut to the possibility of learning something new. If Einstein were as closed-minded about personal hypotheticals as you, he wouldn’t have entertained the Gedankenexperiment of “What would I see if I rode on a beam of light?” And we wouldn’t have his special theory of relativity.
mkfreeberg “Science”
Bingo!
- Captain Midnight | 03/20/2013 @ 09:44Captain Midnight: You issue passive statements like “Countries have the right to self-defence,” but the question isn’t what countries do, but YOU, as leader of the world, would do.
≠
Einstein: “What would I see if I rode on a beam of light?”
- Zachriel | 03/20/2013 @ 13:50Hey, Morgan! Zachriel has finally identify two things that aren’t the same! Congratulations, Z, you’ve correctly pointed out that the sentences are different. *clap* *clap* *clap*
On the other hand, they are the same in that they are both personal hypotheticals. On the gripping hand, the examples here are different in that Einstein was willing to entertain them and developed new theories from them. You, not so much.
But don’t let me interrupt you from your busy day of posting on various blogs. This one here could use some of your wisdom.
- Captain Midnight | 03/20/2013 @ 14:28Captain Midnight: On the other hand, they are the same in that they are both personal hypotheticals.
Both are first-person hypotheticals, but Einstein’s is not personal as what he would see would be the same for any person riding that beam of light. We did attempt to answer your question within the context of the discussion.
If a country were to continuously emit 1000+ times the current emission of CO2, it would be entirely justified for other countries to take whatever action would be required to stop those emissions. That’s because—contrary to what mkfreeberg has argued—, those levels of emissions would accumulate to levels that would pose a serious threat to human health and life.
(While we are rather fond of the naked bipeds, we can only provide an objective answer. Sorry.)
- Zachriel | 03/20/2013 @ 15:23Captain Midnight: On the other hand, they are the same in that they are both personal hypotheticals.
Zachriel Both are first-person hypotheticals, but Einstein’s is not personal as what he would see would be the same for any person riding that beam of light.
Way to strangle a definition! Once again, I’m witnessing the inability to grasp that some things are the same, and some things are different.
Same: personal hypotheticals
Different: attitudes about personal hypotheticals
Time for some remedial work here, Zachriel.
- Captain Midnight | 03/20/2013 @ 17:58We explained the difference. In any case, you could respond to the point, but have chosen not to.
You insisted that we respond to your scenario, which we did. The scenario you proposed would constitute a serious danger to others. That would mean other nations would be justified in taking action in their self-defence. Fossil fuels are limited, so it’s simply not plausible. No nation is going to burn up their wealth in such a manner. In the real world, nations emit CO2 because of industrialization.
This followed the discussion of what would be appropriate if a country didn’t conform to international standards as far as CO2 emissions. This is actually not a new situation, as conventional pollution has often crossed international borders. In modern times, because of the interdependence of nations, negotiations have frequently been fruitful. This is even more so with CO2, as high emissions are tied to development, meaning dependence on trade, which itself depends on the goodwill of trading partners.
- Zachriel | 03/20/2013 @ 19:04In modern times, because of the interdependence of nations, negotiations have frequently been fruitful. This is even more so with CO2, as high emissions are tied to development, meaning dependence on trade, which itself depends on the goodwill of trading partners.
With much more being conceded during those negotiations, from the developed nations, than from the developing nations.
- mkfreeberg | 03/20/2013 @ 19:47Zachriel We explained the difference.
In your world where words have to be tortured to conform to your idea of different.
Zachriel In any case, you could respond to the point, but have chosen not to.
You could grasp that similar things are similar, and that different things are different, but you have chosen not to. You could also have your mind open to the possibility of learning something new, but you have chosen not to.
Thus there is no point in responding to you. Even your fans are hiding.
- Captain Midnight | 03/20/2013 @ 20:02Captain Midnight: You could grasp that similar things are similar, and that different things are different, but you have chosen not to.
We did explain where they were different. Try read it again, if you are interested, but it was irrelevant to the discussion in any case. You seem to be just using it as an excuse to avoid defending your position.
mkfreeberg: With much more being conceded during those negotiations, from the developed nations, than from the developing nations.
Developing nations emit CO2 far less per capita than developed nations.
- Zachriel | 03/21/2013 @ 03:44We did explain where they were different.
Adverbs…the adverbs are important…adverbs and adjectives in the twenty things that are non-partisan and ideologically neutral, or darn well ought to be:
Since I took the inconvenient approach of properly using these, the workload has increased to something above what you’ve bothered to engage: It isn’t enough to identify a difference, as in, “…Einstein’s [first-person hypothetical] is not personal as what he would see would be the same for any person riding that beam of light.” Yes, it’s a difference. No, it is not a meaningful difference; or, not meaningful in any way you’ve bothered to describe. Einstein’s visual experience as he rode the beam of light would be the same as for anybody else riding the beam…therefore, bad consequences will ensue if you directly answer CM’s question about what-would-you-do…because?
Or, you could simply decline to observe #8 and #9 there. They’re nothing more than my decisions about things. But, problem: There were reasons why I included those. To disclaim them and say, “identifying a difference is enough, I don’t need to illustrate how it matters,” is to disclaim reality itself.
If it snows more than a couple inches, I’ll shovel the driveway, you said. Well get your galoshes on, because it snowed. But, I don’t feel like it, you say…and hey, look at those snowflakes, they’re not shaped the same way as the snowflakes I had in mind when I said I would take care of the driveway. If the discussion is to have anything to do with reality, it must identify meaningful similarities in the things that are presented as similar, and meaningful differences in the things that are different.
So now it looks like we have to do another 150 posts on how to discuss hypotheticals. I wonder if, before we’re finished, it will involve a hypothetical about hypotheticals.
Developing nations emit CO2 far less per capita than developed nations.
Absolutely. So it just makes sense that the United States should be held to more stringent standards than China, since the whole Earth is at stake. Even though China emits more. It’s not about allowances total, it’s about allowances per capita.
Although, of course, if we were really worried about the Earth’s continuing ability to sustain life, it would not be about allowances per capita. I appreciate this particular part of the argument, because it shows that this isn’t science, but a political movement.
- mkfreeberg | 03/21/2013 @ 06:35mkfreeberg: are meaningfully different
We pointed to a meaningful distinction.
mkfreeberg: Although, of course, if we were really worried about the Earth’s continuing ability to sustain life, it would not be about allowances per capita.
Global warming is not a threat to life on Earth, or even human life on Earth, but one of continued development and prosperity while protecting the environment for future generations. There is a balance to be made between development and mitigating climate change.
- Zachriel | 03/21/2013 @ 10:22We pointed to a meaningful distinction.
The debate, naturally, turns then to whether the distinction is meaningful. And here is where your brand of “science” is revealed to have nothing at all to do with real science, indeed it has nothing even to do with discourse or even any honest exercise of philosophy, for you won’t engage this. Instead, you simply settle on a difference that is “meaningful” — to you, although to others it exists as barely more than ornamentation. We’ve been here before. “Sandra Fluke never discussed her own sex life” is another great example: Meaningful, to some anonymous people out there on the Internet who won’t tell us who they are or even what their nose count is. That’s somehow supposed to be convincing. Meanwhile, anyone who has been following the situation can see it’s entirely meaningless whether Fluke was talking about her own sex life or anybody else’s, or even whether or not she was talking about sex. She was proposing an alternative, Occupy-movement, “I stop paying for it the minute I feel like whining about it” economic system. So there, as well as here with Einstein’s hypothetical, this “meaningful” distinction you seek to make is a fektoid-distinction, fektoid being some datum being presented during an argument, whose “veracity would survive a diligent and skeptical inspection, but its relevance would not.”
I’ve noticed y’all do this a lot. [Insert cuttlefish reference here] Someone points out your argument doesn’t work, you go through the motions of pointing out their objection doesn’t work; because this-thing-over-here is one thing, that-thing-over-there is another. But to a thinking observer, it’s readily observable that the difference itself, being a fektoid, is verifiable but not relevant. Science would then pursue a discussion about whether there is relevance in the difference. Politics, on the other hand, would simply double down, and strut like a pigeon on a chessboard, luxuriating in the “victory” that the objection has been successfully shunted aside.
Which is what we’ve seen you do. Many times.
- mkfreeberg | 03/21/2013 @ 11:03mkfreeberg: The debate, naturally, turns then to whether the distinction is meaningful.
As it is irrelevant to the discussion, it does not turn the debate, which concerned the global effects of CO2.
- Zachriel | 03/21/2013 @ 12:57Whether same things are the same, and different things are different, is irrelevant to the discussion? Even when your point depends on these supposed differences and similarities?
- mkfreeberg | 03/21/2013 @ 15:05mkfreeberg: Whether same things are the same, and different things are different, is irrelevant to the discussion?
Same things are the same. Different things are different. But whether chartreuse is a shade of green or yellow is not relevant to a discussion of climate science.
- Zachriel | 03/21/2013 @ 15:12Exactly. Every two things in the entire universe, are different if you look hard enough for differences; question is, are they meaningfully different. All of which goes back to my reminder about adjectives and adverbs from 6:35, six posts ago. So this is not anything past anybody’s comprehension here.
The discussion of how things are similar, or different, becomes important; but it is a kindness to your fragile arguments, to pretend that they are somehow irrelevant, so you’d just as soon avoid that. It is what is required, to make your opinions appear to have validity.
Meanwhile, it isn’t clear how you consider Einstein’s hypothetical to be worthy of contemplation, but Captain Midnight’s not to be. You’ve had an opportunity to expound on this, and your comments have dissolved into a gooey puddle of silliness. Yes there are differences, just as there are differences among all four of the kids playing a game in CM’s YouTube video. But you haven’t responded to the question of how the differences are meaningful, other than to declare that whole side-discussion to be “irrelevant.” So, again, we are in agreement here; your argument depends on pretending functionally similar things are meaningfully different, and vice-versa.
- mkfreeberg | 03/21/2013 @ 15:37mkfreeberg: Exactly.
Good, we’re in agreement.
mkfreeberg: Meanwhile, it isn’t clear how you consider Einstein’s hypothetical to be worthy of contemplation, but Captain Midnight’s not to be.
We did answer Captain Midnight’s scenario: If a country were spewing enough CO2 to kill the world’s population, they can be stopped with whatever means are necessary. However, it’s a silly hypothetical because such a scenario is beyond plausibility. Why not just go with “frickin’ sharks with frickin’ laser beams attached to their frickin’ heads”?
- Zachriel | 03/21/2013 @ 16:26Well, I suppose it might appear silly if you can’t see the point that he’s trying to make…or if you can see it, but consider it advantageous (or vital) to your own argument to try to shunt aside the point he seeks to make.
But with regard to similar things being similar, meaningfully, and different things being different, meaningfully, this is fundamental to all practical thinking. With enough rationalization you can make any two different things appear to be similar, even though from a practical point of view, they aren’t. And, with enough rationalization you can make any two similar things appear different, even when they’re identical in all the ways that matter.
- mkfreeberg | 03/21/2013 @ 17:34mkfreeberg: Well, I suppose it might appear silly if you can’t see the point that he’s trying to make…
Perhaps, but then most people would try to explain the point in different terms. Not sure this conversation is productive, or particularly interesting. We are only interested in the science.
- Zachriel | 03/21/2013 @ 17:56Without the ability to differentiate things that are meaningfully different, or detect the commonalities in things that are functionally identical, rational thinking is not possible. Therefore, neither is real science.
Under such conditions however, politics can certainly thrive. Even while disguised as a phony strain of “science.”
- mkfreeberg | 03/21/2013 @ 19:33mkfreeberg: Without the ability to differentiate things that are meaningfully different, or detect the commonalities in things that are functionally identical, rational thinking is not possible.
Functionally similar things are functionally similar. Meaningfully different things are meaningfully different. We’re in agreement.
- Zachriel | 03/22/2013 @ 04:55Yes, we are. But it is more useful to define the disagreement: We disagree about whether the applicability of “meaningful” should be explored.
This would explain the circular trajectory of discussions with The Zachriel: A disagreement emerges about — whether it’s inspected this way, on a word-for-word basis, or not — whether a similarity between two things, or a differentiation between two things, is meaningful. The Z pass judgment on whether or not that is the case, someone else dissents, and the response that comes back is some form of “we prefer to look at the evidence”; but, in that situation, the evidence is not what is being disputed, it is the meaning of it.
- mkfreeberg | 03/22/2013 @ 07:59mkfreeberg: We disagree about whether the applicability of “meaningful” should be explored.
It’s worth exploring, but it tends to be subjective outside a scientific context. We’re not particularly interested non-scientific discussions, so good luck with that.
- Zachriel | 03/22/2013 @ 08:25It’s worth exploring, but it tends to be subjective outside a scientific context.
Meaning…it’s not worth exploring. You prefer to stick to the special-sauce scare-quote “science,” that kind of science in which decisions can be made about similarities and distinctions, unilaterally, one-time, no-question-no-appeal…and always toward the benefit of a fixed political objective.
I’ll stick with the real science, that doesn’t need scare quotes, trademark signs or footnotes, thanks.
- mkfreeberg | 03/22/2013 @ 08:36mkfreeberg: Meaning…it’s not worth exploring.
Sure it can be, but when outside a scientific context, it tends to be subjective. But we said this already. Glad to see you gave up making misstatements about climate science.
- Zachriel | 03/22/2013 @ 09:52Sure it can be, but when outside a scientific context, it tends to be subjective. But we said this already.
Which is not as accurate as saying, you don’t think this is worth exploring.
That is an objectively verifiable observation, when one simply peruses how y’all behave when challenged. “Sandra Fluke never discussed her own sex life” is one example. “Engineering and science are different” is another. These are comments about differences, which are real and can be validated, but are entirely meaningless in the contexts. And meaninglessness is not subjectively determined condition in either case. In both situations, it is a concrete, measurable thing. Like it’s accurate to say “a million is different from a thousand.” If the context is “find n modulo 30 before proceeding to the next step,” then to anyone who understands the mathematical concept involved, it is objectively demonstrable that both equations evaluate to the same result. Just as it is objectively demonstrable that an engineer should be just as qualified to comment on science as a scientist.
So you’re wrong about the meaningful difference, and you’re wrong about the objectivity vs. subjectivity. Other than those two problems, it’s a great statement.
But your inaccurate understanding of the meaninglessness is not at issue. Your unwillingness to discuss it in any sincere and transparent way is what is at issue.
We do agree on similar things being similar, and different things being different.
- mkfreeberg | 03/22/2013 @ 11:24mkfreeberg: Just as it is objectively demonstrable that an engineer should be just as qualified to comment on science as a scientist.
Engineering is not science.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Engineering Is Not Science
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science
National Society of Professional Engineers: What is the difference between science and engineering?
http://www.nspe.org/Media/Resources/faqs.html
mkfreeberg: We do agree on similar things being similar, and different things being different.
Functionally similar things are functionally similar. Meaningfully different things are meaningfully different.
- Zachriel | 03/22/2013 @ 11:41Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Engineering Is Not Science
Right, you’ve already posted that. And, a million is not a thousand.
But with some understanding of the concepts, you can see how your posted opinion piece is wrong, or inapplicable in some contexts, and the contrary view is the correct one. However — emphasis is on “with some understanding of the concepts.” You have to understand how the modulo operation works to see 1000000 % 30 == 1000 % 30.
- mkfreeberg | 03/22/2013 @ 12:01mkfreeberg: And, a million is not a thousand.
That’s right.
- Zachriel | 03/22/2013 @ 13:58And yet the two integers do have common characteristics. Based on those commonalities, when certain situation arise, we can assess that a commenter doesn’t know what he’s talking about, when he protests that one is an unfit replacement for the other. For example, if we are seeking an even number, and the million is recommended but only the thousand is available by way of evidence. Or, in my offering where we want n modulo 30. Whoever says one of those is an unfit substitute for the other, fails to comprehend 1) modulo operation, 2) a thousand, 3) a million, 4) math or 5) logic.
To summarize: Things that are different, have characteristics which may be in common. We live in a universe where any two things within it have differences, if you look hard enough. The more capable thinker will ponder what the differences are, and what the similarities are, and figure out which is meaningful depending on the situation.
- mkfreeberg | 03/22/2013 @ 16:21mkfreeberg: Things that are different, have characteristics which may be in common.
Functionally similar things are functionally similar. Meaningfully different things are meaningfully different.
- Zachriel | 03/22/2013 @ 18:27We’re satisfied that you gave up on making misstatements about climate science. Was there anything else?
- Zachriel | 03/22/2013 @ 18:30Do we need to footnote or scare-quote the word “misstatements” just like we need to do with “science,” “subjective,” “objective” and “different”?
- mkfreeberg | 03/22/2013 @ 20:16mkfreeberg: Do we need to footnote or scare-quote the word “misstatements” just like we need to do with “science,” “subjective,” “objective” and “different”?
No, we generally use terminology in its conventional sense. Any special cases are noted at the time. For instance, if we say the Earth’s mean surface temperature has increased 0.8°C over the last century or so, and refer to the National Academies of Science, then we are using the terms in their conventional sense.
- Zachriel | 03/23/2013 @ 05:00http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12781&page=1
But you don’t use “science” in its conventional sense. We’ve seen repeatedly that when you identify two things as being different, and a dispute arises as to whether the difference is meaningful, your brand of science entirely sidesteps that discussion which is something real science cannot do.
1000000 % 30 == 1000 % 30 is entirely different from saying 1000000 == 1000.
If real science worked the way you seem to think it works, supposing that all differences are ipso facto meaningful, any science dealing with modeling, or proxies, would be impossible. That self-immolation of science would start with climate science.
Real science deals with evidence on a “Rumsfeld” basis; it goes to the white board with the evidence it has, not with the evidence it wants.
- mkfreeberg | 03/23/2013 @ 09:27mkfreeberg: But you don’t use “science” in its conventional sense.
Science is the systematic study of various aspects of the universe, characterized by the scientific method.
mkfreeberg: If real science worked the way you seem to think it works, supposing that all differences are ipso facto meaningful,
We’ve never said any such thing, nor do we hold that position.
- Zachriel | 03/23/2013 @ 11:43And yet, once you define differentiating characteristics, you entirely sidestep the ensuing discussion as to whether they are meaningful or not.
People working with real science can’t do that.
- mkfreeberg | 03/23/2013 @ 12:17mkfreeberg: And yet, once you define differentiating characteristics, you entirely sidestep the ensuing discussion as to whether they are meaningful or not.
Please be specific.
- Zachriel | 03/23/2013 @ 12:241. There is some meaningful difference between Sandra Fluke discussing her own sex life, and her testimony about her friends’ sex lives, or their medical needs. In reality the distinction, while real, is meaningless because the subject has to do with the sense of disgust felt about young women speaking out, in public, about such personal items for sake of moving their political agendas forward, something women of previous generations would not have done, so either way there is a decline of cultural standards taking place. The issue is not that you’re wrong about the defined difference being meaningful, which you are. The issue is that you won’t discuss it. People who work with real science can’t do that.
2. There is some meaningful difference between science and engineering. There certainly is a difference, but not if we’re gathering opinions from qualified professionals about what the evidence says and what it might mean. In this case, you then went on to say (or someone in your group did) that a scientist is simply someone who “does science,” therefore Eratosthenes himself would qualify. But the engineers don’t qualify. Because then you went on to say that to do science, one has to deal with new concepts or some such. To take your differentiation seriously, one then has to ponder whether Eratosthenes was really dealing with new concepts; I would say this becomes problematic, but I didn’t pursue it at the time because it became clear you were just moving goalposts around doing cuttlefish moves, making up the new rules as you went along. Again, the issue is not that you’re wrong about the defined difference being meaningful, which you are. The issue is that you won’t acknowledge that in the named survey, scientists and engineers played the same role, therefore it doesn’t invalidate the survey to simply include the engineers — you wouldn’t discuss how this might contaminate the survey, you simply pulled this new rule out of your rear end and stuck to it, obviously without thinking it through all the way. People who work with real science can’t do that.
3. There is some meaningful difference between “What would Einstein see if he rode on a beam of light?” and “What would The Zachriel do if they were in charge of the entire world, minus Nation A, which has pledged to emit…” according to the pattern CM hypothesized. It’s clear there is a difference, in that one has to do with observation and the other has to do with action. The rebuttal is: In context of this phony science, which breaches beyond the perimeter of real science and lurches into the domain of political advocacy, with no regret or no contrition at all…this distinction becomes meaningless. The issue is not that you’re wrong about the defined difference being meaningful, which you are. The issue is that you won’t discuss it. People who work with real science can’t do that.
- mkfreeberg | 03/23/2013 @ 12:48mkfreeberg: There is some meaningful difference between Sandra Fluke discussing her own sex life, and her testimony about her friends’ sex lives, or their medical needs.
Of course there is.
mkfreeberg: In reality the distinction, while real, is meaningless …
“There is some meaningful difference” contradicts “is ‘meaningless”.
mkfreeberg: … because the subject has to do with the sense of disgust felt about young women speaking out, in public, about such personal items for sake of moving their political agendas forward, something women of previous generations would not have done, so either way there is a decline of cultural standards taking place.
Whether you personally consider the difference meaningful or not, it’s not appropriate to misrepresent the facts, especially when the false information is used to malign someone.
mkfreeberg: There is some meaningful difference between science and engineering.
Of course there is. We have pointed you to engineering associations that discuss the differences.
mkfreeberg: The issue is that you won’t acknowledge that in the named survey, scientists and engineers played the same role, therefore it doesn’t invalidate the survey to simply include the engineers
The survey is the survey. However, engineers are not recognized authorities on scientific matters.
mkfreeberg: “What would Einstein see if he rode on a beam of light?” and “What would The Zachriel do if they were in charge of the entire world, minus Nation A, which has pledged to emit…”
Einstein would see is what anyone would see. We answered the second question in a like manner, what any reasonable person would do in a similar situation.
mkfreeberg: The issue is that you won’t discuss it. People who work with real science can’t do that.
It wasn’t a scientific question.
—
Okay, so you were clearly wrong when you said “If real science worked the way you seem to think it works, supposing that all differences are ipso facto meaningful”. Rather, we disagree on what is reasonably considered meaningful.
- Zachriel | 03/23/2013 @ 13:11Of course there is.
And with that, you’re done discussing it.
Just like I said.
People who work with real science, can’t do that.
- mkfreeberg | 03/23/2013 @ 13:21mkfreeberg: And with that, you’re done discussing it.
We could discuss it in more detail, but we were agreeing with you!
- Zachriel | 03/23/2013 @ 13:24We could discuss it in more detail, but we were agreeing with you!
Yes you were agreeing about the difference, the point of the dispute is the meaningfulness. Meaningfulness is context-dependent. I previously offered the example of
1,000,000 % 30 == 1,000 % 30
There may be a simpler way to show what I’m talking about — the point is, anyone can come along and say “a million is not a thousand” which is true. Entirely sidestepping the whole thing about the modulo operator, they wouldn’t even have to understand how it works to play this game of “I found a difference so I win.” But of course, they’d be incorrect if they went on to say the equation doesn’t work. This is why people are disagreeing with you, even though you’re finding these fektoid differences in things. Which, like any fektoid, hold up under inspection…but aren’t relevant to the context.
- mkfreeberg | 03/23/2013 @ 13:45mkfreeberg: Yes you were agreeing about the difference, the point of the dispute is the meaningfulness.
Yes, but you weren’t consistent. First you said there was “some meaningful difference”, then you said the distinction was “meaningless”. Nor is that what you had just claimed, which was that we were treating “all differences are ipso facto meaningful”, which is false.
In the Sandra Fluke situation, regardless of someone’s disagreement with her politics, there was no excuse in misrepresenting her statements, or in attacking her character.
- Zachriel | 03/23/2013 @ 13:50When you’re energizing a political movement to invent a whole new economic system based on “I shouldn’t have to pay for anything I find too expensive,” that’s plenty good enough reason to attack her character. We have a lot of hard-working people out there paying full price for lots of things and they’d rather save the money, but they want to pull their own weight. If Ms. Fluke is tired of it and wants to climb into the wagon everybody else is pulling even though she’s a Georgetown Law student, that’s good enough reason to attack her character.
Again, meaninglessness is context-dependent. One million is functionally indistinguishable from a thousand if the context is, “take n modulo 30 and proceed to the next step.” The difference becomes meaningful if the operation is log10 or something.
- mkfreeberg | 03/23/2013 @ 14:20mkfreeberg: When you’re energizing a political movement to invent a whole new economic system based on “I shouldn’t have to pay for anything I find too expensive,” that’s plenty good enough reason to attack her character.
It’s never appropriate to make false accusations.
In any case, we may disagree on the specific case, but you had claimed that we were treating “all differences are ipso facto meaningful”, which is false. Indeed, scientific advances are often about showing that apparently different things are actually different manifestations of the same thing.
- Zachriel | 03/24/2013 @ 05:47It’s never appropriate to make false accusations.
Rush’s point, “you call her a slut,” was that Fluke was entirely neglecting character standards that used to be de rigueur. Whether that really does make her a slut or not is a matter of subjective opinion, but you certainly can’t call it a “false accusation” for people to think of her as one. That, in itself, would be a false accusation.
Indeed, scientific advances are often about showing that apparently different things are actually different manifestations of the same thing.
Yes, there’s that. There is also the other thing, that different things, in a defined context, may be treated as the same thing even though they aren’t. Much scientific debate ensues about whether that is okay within that context. All modeling relies on this, since by its nature, modeling uses one thing as a stand-in, or proxy, for something else. So the point is that the “I found a difference so I win” argument-terminator method isn’t appropriate for real science. Although it is a satisfactory beginning of a potentially disqualifying discussion; but you have to go from there, to demonstrating how & why the identified difference is a meaningful one.
Were that not the case, all climate models would exist outside of science, and have to be disqualified automatically. Since a model of the Earth is not the Earth.
- mkfreeberg | 03/24/2013 @ 07:48mkfreeberg: Rush’s point, “you call her a slut,” was that Fluke was entirely neglecting character standards that used to be de rigueur.
He went into quite a bit of detail, so it is clear he was not using the term metaphorically, but literally.
Rush Limbaugh: “she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”
mkfreeberg: Since a model of the Earth is not the Earth.
All scientific theories are essentially models.
mkfreeberg: There is also the other thing, that different things, in a defined context, may be treated as the same thing even though they aren’t.
Yes, that’s right.
- Zachriel | 03/24/2013 @ 08:35Rush Limbaugh: “she must be paid to have sex — what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”
Right. The whole point of her testimony was that she and her fellow students couldn’t afford their contraception and needed to have it provided for them. So, Rush Limbaugh used shocking language to summarize. Which is what talk show hosts are supposed to do. But where’s the “false accusation”?
When there’s an expense, especially a personal expense, and the person who owns that expense doesn’t have to incur it because someone else is compelled to cover it on that person’s behalf, that is a payment. A “sale” would be convincing the person covering it, to voluntarily enter into such a commitment. That would be a slut. Fluke went even further than that, seeking force of law to compel others to cover the expense, involuntarily.
- mkfreeberg | 03/24/2013 @ 09:09mkfreeberg: The whole point of her testimony was that she and her fellow students couldn’t afford their contraception and needed to have it provided for them.
Well, they wanted it included in their health insurance, like Viagra is already covered.
mkfreeberg: So, Rush Limbaugh used shocking language to summarize.
If you mean he made false accusation in order to smear someone, sure, that’s the ticket.
In any case, we both agree that functionally similar things are functionally similar. Meaningfully different things are meaningfully different. We only disagree on the particulars.
- Zachriel | 03/24/2013 @ 12:05If you mean [by he “used shocking language to summarize”] he made false accusation in order to smear someone, sure, that’s the ticket.
I don’t.
Shocking language is shocking language. False statements are false statements. Those two are different things.
Yes, the situation does get sticky and complicated, but I content it got to be that way because someone wanted to incur personal expenses, and have those expenses absorbed by some unnamed, unknown, unacquainted, functionally anonymous, functionally invisible “other.” That’s how it works. When your existence becomes a net negative upon humanity and you want someone else to reckon with those net consequences so you don’t have to, things get messy. That’s not Rush Limbaugh’s fault.
- mkfreeberg | 03/24/2013 @ 17:29mkfreeberg: Shocking language is shocking language. False statements are false statements. Those two are different things.
“It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.” These are false statements, and fallacious ad hominem to boot.
mkfreeberg: someone wanted to incur personal expenses, and have those expenses absorbed by some unnamed, unknown, unacquainted, functionally anonymous, functionally invisible “other.”
Well, no. They were advocating it be included in their insurance package they are paying for, as Viagra is already.
In any case, we may disagree on the specific case, but you had claimed that we were treating “all differences are ipso facto meaningful”, which is false.
- Zachriel | 03/25/2013 @ 05:25“It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.” These are false statements, and fallacious ad hominem to boot.
He just went by her statements. Her whole point was it was untenable for her to be able to afford her own contraceptive supplies.
Whether she and her supporters want to admit it or not, that would be compensation. A lot of people perceive that they’ve nailed Limbaugh, and other conservatives, in some misstatement because of this feeling that money and other material things, extorted from others through regulatory means, are somehow not real. Well, they are real, and that makes it compensation. So, your categorization of this as a misstatement is, in itself, a misstatement.
Well, no. They were advocating it be included in their insurance package they are paying for…
Nonsense. Her whole point was that the supplies were not affordable.
- mkfreeberg | 03/25/2013 @ 09:20mkfreeberg: He just went by her statements.
It was a false accusation.
mkfreeberg: Whether she and her supporters want to admit it or not, that would be compensation.
When your health insurance pays for your Viagra, it doesn’t make you a prostitute.
In any case, we may disagree on the specific case, but you had claimed that we were treating “all differences are ipso facto meaningful”, which is false.
- Zachriel | 03/25/2013 @ 09:29It was a false accusation.
No, it wasn’t.
mkfreeberg: Whether she and her supporters want to admit it or not, that would be compensation.
Z: When your health insurance pays for your Viagra, it doesn’t make you a prostitute.
I haven’t asked for my health insurance to pay for Viagra. I certainly haven’t stormed Capitol Hill and made an appearance to demand such a thing. You know, I think that might have been what Rush Limbaugh was complaining about. What do you think?
In any case, we may disagree on the specific case, but you had claimed that we were treating “all differences are ipso facto meaningful”, which is false.
In this example, you are taking a meaningless difference and pretending it is meaningful. So I have provided support for what I have said.
- mkfreeberg | 03/25/2013 @ 14:53Hmm.
- Zachriel | 03/26/2013 @ 09:50