Everything we do has an effect on the world.. by definition.
But that is separate from the question of truth, where the burden of proving a thesis falls solidly on those responsible for its claim.
Printable View
Everything we do has an effect on the world.. by definition.
But that is separate from the question of truth, where the burden of proving a thesis falls solidly on those responsible for its claim.
Hear is where your reasoning fails you: You claim that the complex chaotic ambiguity has not been adequately addressed by global warming science. But it has been. It was done pursuant to a method that science uses all the time. It’s called the “even if” argument. All your chaotic ambiguity was addressed in my post regarding the 30% natural variation. Now, you can plug any numbers you want into that analysis, and make sure they are the most favorable to your case. It does not change the outcome. The only way to defeat it is to prove that man does not contribute anything beyond baseline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
Even if you were to try and argue that his contributions were magically offset by some aspect of the ambiguity, the laws of physics argue that such an offset would, in turn, have an impact elsewhere in the systems ability to respond.
But, nonetheless, the burden of proof in science, as elsewhere, is not now and never has been absolute certainty. The burden has shifted from the proponents of the theory, if there ever was one.
Your "even if" example is tautologically true, but does not connect A to B.
No need, they’ve been dumbed down below comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Your poor use of the English language makes it unclear as to whether you are using an analogy, or if you actually think the burden of proof in this debate is “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Just in case you are serious, you should know there are a great number of burdens, from preponderance of the evidence (51%) all the way up to “actual certainty.” You might be surprised to know that in science, many an “actual certainty” has fallen. Of course, when it does, the apologist for science look back and merely say: “Well, that wasn’t really science.” LOL!Quote:
Unless you despise the American system, the burdon of proof rests to *prove* a theory or scientific thesis. The status quo is innocent until proven (without a reasonable doubt) guilty. That "burden of proof" is nowhere near being met.
Remember when I told you that an analogy is not, by definition, the thing itself? And that it simply is no argument to point that out? And that he who wishes to defeat it must draw a distinction with a difference? Watch me destroy your analogy with a single probative difference: We are not messing with your body. The aliens are. Compare that with the global warming debate and see if you can see how that simple distinction makes all the difference in the world.Quote:
The argument that it is the burden to disprove global warming is pure fallacy. Im going to make a thesis saying aliens landed on the other side of the moon, left a juicy fruit wrapper laced with a new kind of plauge that will someday whipe out the earth if we dont take care of it. Is it my burden to prove it, or your burden to disprove it? How do you disprove their isnt a juicy fruit wrapper on the other side of the moon? After all, this plauge thing could kill us all, its not your body your messing with, its mine. Dont put the revolver to my head and pull the trigger please, its the burden of proof to act on this before this plague spreads. You can smoke if you want, but you dont have the right to infect me with alien plague.
I asked you to help me out if that was not your meaning. You cited an EPA position and said they not say “X.” I quoted your EPA position where they said “X.” I assumed you were not stupid and asked for your clarification. A logical response would have been reference to EPAs distinction between global warming and climate change.Quote:
Also I'd like to point out, you are doing as many do: Only represent the facts that support your cause, thesis, or argument. I caught you in the act:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recon
The article speaks for itself. Your summary was patently inaccurate and, regardless of the merits of EPAs position, I proved it.Quote:
Why is it, you choose to show only the statements that support your argument, the very definition of a bias, when I make a true summary of what the article actually represents?
On this, you and I agree. I fail to see the distinction, not that there isn’t one. It has just not been explained to me. However, if we accept this position, then it makes your statement about EPA’s position even more incorrect, if that is possible. Hell, I was just trying to help dig you out of the hole you had dug yourself.Quote:
Call the theory what it is. Global. Warming.
I agree with most of what you’ve said, but I think I’ve read where it was those who oppose the “global warming” theory who have started using “climate change,” as a more difficult burden to prove. i.e. Not regional climates, but the Earth’s whole climate. I could be wrong and if I am, I’m sure you will point me in the correct direction.Quote:
Calling it climate change is just an attempt to associate it with "nicer words" since "climate change" is something that happens every day, you can also dissociate the title from a "yet proven theory". If they renamed evolution to "growing up", the result would be that if you discussed it on negative terms, people would be slightly less inclined to believe you because they grew up at one point in their lives.
Coming out against "climate change" sounds worse than coming out against "global warming" which is the exact reason they use that verbage.
You are correct. The "even if" argument disposes of the chaotic ambiguity, but it does not connect A to B.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
A to B is connected by the evidence that both sides agree on; i.e. We emit greenhouse gases and, all other things being equal, green house gases create a green house effect. The "even if" is designed to dispose of the fact that not all other things are equal, and indeed, they are chaotic and ambiguous.
It's sole purpose is a policy/political decision to shift the burden of proof. Kind of a "better safe than sorry" catch all until all (or more) data is in.
Which brings us back to exactly what I said before-- that the effect of emissions on the global climate IS NOT KNOWN:Quote:
Originally Posted by Recon
Quote:
Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.
The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.
In other words, it does not support the scientific thesis; the global warming "conclusion" is a political tool.Quote:
It's sole purpose is a policy/political decision to shift the burden of proof. Kind of a "better safe than sorry" catch all until all (or more) data is in.
Thank you.
As one who has at least a rudimentary understanding of logic, I’m surprised. Are you arguing that the presence of any political decision renders all the science which purports to support it, non-existent, or cherry picked, or not meaningful? Or are you arguing that is just the case here, in the global warming debate? And if so, are you arguing that there is NO science here? I’m perplexed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
Politics and policy do not support global warming theory. Rather, global warming theory supports the politics and policy.
Next, you say: “that the effect of emissions on the global climate IS NOT KNOWN.” You appear to be getting metaphysical on me here. What IS known, pray tell? Nothing. Science will be the first to admit that absolute certainty is not required for reasonable men to come to reasonable conclusions for the purposes of policy. Politics and policy not only reside outside of science, but within it. People use the best information they have and do what they can with it. The burden has been shifted to your side to trounce the policy and you and yours have failed to do it.
You are demanding your own subjective level of proof, kind of like an O.J. juror. Give me a reasonable articulable burden of proof that global warming science must meet. Not yours, but some objective criteria set down by the community. It's not what burden would make you happy, or anyone else for that matter. I'm just asking at what point the community would decide it IS KNOWN? Ask Bush. Ask scientists. The burden is on you.
Nope, you specifically stated the "even if" tool was a political/policy decision. It does not serve to prove a scientific thesis in this case.
As for the rest, it is not metaphysical at all. Simply put, the observations about actual temperate change since the industrial revolution cannot be used as evidence for man-made climate change because closed and chaotic system is not understood well enough in a predictable (ie, scientific way) as to separate collosal historical trends which have pruduced in the past changes dwarfing anything observed in the last 200 years, from components directly attributable to human behavior.
In other words.. that A causes B.
Hell, even Carl Wunsch writes, in his rebuttal to the C4 piece, that the science is not mature enough to give definite answers. He characterizes taking precautions as "insurance" the same way "we take out homeowners insurance against fire."
The former is a statement about the thesis about global warming. The latter is a policy/political statement about hedging a bet about something that may or may not happen.
Don’t confuse my use of the “even if” tool (a tool commonly used in science) with the science that does exist and which does address, in part, some of the chaotic ambiguities. The 30% figure I used (for man or nature) can be corrected to address, at least at some percentage, the data that we do have. Simply put, the science that does exist does not rise to your subjective level of proof. It does, however, not only meet the level of proof required by policy makers, but it also meets the level of proof required by the scientific community at large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
When you say “closed and chaotic system is not understood well enough” you have to understand that you don’t get to decide what “well enough” is for any given decision, be it scientific or politic.
Since I am not a scientist, I will defer to them on the merits of you unsubstantiated claims. In fact, even if you were to trot out a million web citations in support of your position, I could do little more than snipe at them like you have with the science in support of global warming. If you deny that green house gasses create a green house effect (A causes B), all other things being equal, then you are in denial. That’s cool. As I said before, the operative question relates to those other things that are not equal and those things have been addressed; perhaps not to your satisfaction, but that does not mean they have not been addressed.
More proof of my point that, barring the metaphysical, science does not mandate a certain level of proof or "definite answers." And, not withstanding my request, you have failed to articulate a level necessary. It seems you must have absolute scientific certainty, and if it does not exist, then there is no science at all. That is illogical. Just because a decision is made does not mean everything is settled. Science does not require it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
When you fire your weapon, you don't know, with a "definite answer" that it will discharge a round. Just because you don't know it doesn't mean all the science that says a round will fire somehow must not exist. There is science out there that says it will. Good science. Good enough that you don't fire at people unless you intend to kill them.
Quote:
But I have tried to stay out of the `climate wars' because all nuance tends to be lost, and the distinction between what we know firmly, as scientists, and what we suspect is happening, is so difficult to maintain in the presence of rhetorical excess. In the long run, our credibility as scientists rests on being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise.
On that we can both agree. Although I suspect it was penned by one of "your" boys, it still cuts both ways. I see the above referenced distinction getting lost primarily due to the noise coming from outside of the community, and particularly from those who claim that somehow those scientists within the community are engaged in a world wide "feel good" conspiracy against real science. Even if you write well, like Crieghton and Card, it's still noise. Policy wonks on both sides spin the science but at this point the policy wonk in the White House has made a call, albeit against his gut. Science can do that sometimes. I'm sure better arguers than you and I have given it their best shot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
In the end, we don't "know" anything "firmly" we just suspect firmly. Science has stepped on it's dick too many times in the past to think otherwise, hence the author's reference to "being very careful of, and protective of, our authority and expertise."
Wunsch wrote that. :mrgreen:
On that happy note, I'm outa here. Time to shoot some paper. [postal]
After this entertaining flame war, I do plan to follow up with some additional reading on the subject.
If the weather holds, I'm off to Logan NM for two days of LR shooting this weekend, but there's also a Pueblo tac-rifle match on Sunday.
[postal]
I'm going to try to make it to one of those, one of these days. I have a RR Lower and an MGI QCB upper that needs some exersize. Just hope I don't get shot for my "strange" politics. :mrgreen: Have fun in Logan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak Smith
“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the standard in criminal cases. “Preponderance of the evidence” is the standard in most civil cases. There are many other standards used in different venues. You have yet to demonstrate the standard to be used in the global warming debate, by scientists themselves, or by politicians. In any event, whatever the standard is, it was met in the eyes of the Administration from a policy perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Snip
You are clearly in over your head here. Your analogy was defeated because WE (yeah, that’s us, you and me, human beings) are the one’s dumping green house gasses into the atmosphere. Thus, we have the burden of proving no harm. I, on the hand (along with us, you and me, human beings) did not put the wrapper on the other side of the moon. If I had put it there, or if humanity was responsible for it, then your analogy would hold, but it does not.Quote:
My analogy was in relation to a thesis being proven on the basis it cannot be disproven, not aliens killing you instead of humans. The analogy still stands, because you repeatedly have made the statement it is the responsiblity of everybody to disprove greenhouse gas induced global warming. That intended meaning cannot be accidentally construed if you read the text before it and following it, so essentially your responding with yet another un-related argument to weasel out of answering the original question. Again, is it my burden to prove my alien thesis, or is it your burden to disprove it?
Again, you obviously are in over your head. The issue in the analogy was not whether any one would question the history operation (or use) of the M-16. The issue was who you would go to for information on those matters, an expert or a gun control nut. Based upon your postings, I’m sure you don’t get that but there is not much else I can do for you. I can hold your hand and walk you through these things but you have to have some modicum of reasoning skills and logic.Quote:
Not to mention I destroyed your original analogy with a single probative difference: An m16, and the history and operation of such are not, nor will not be questioned by anyone. Hence "tangable" object. You on the other hand, state that the analogy fails because aliens infect you with plague and not humans? Are you that naive?
Snip
Try to focus. Think before you post. The operative point in the analogy is not that death will result from either or both comparisons, but, rather, that the burden of proof regarding results is on those who would alter the status quo. i.e. the world before man’s green house gas influence and me and you standing around minding our own business before you decide to point a gun at me and pull the trigger. I could have used any of a thousand other analogies that would not result in death or bodily harm. Like diverting a stream above your fields, or condemning a road through your property, or whatever. Burdens are assigned to those who would take action altering the baseline to the possible detriment of another, or society as a whole.Quote:
Fall back onto the definition of sarcasm please, because you obviously cant tell the difference. You obviously have trouble reading beyond the literal subject. I can make just as powerful of an example and use SARCASM to make an irony of the statements you have made that your life is threatened by global warming which MAY increase the temperature of the earth maybe two degrees over the course of your lifetime, which you claim is similar to someone else putting a revolver to your head and pulling the trigger;
On that notion, your analogies have miserably failed. Explain one way "global" warming is going to lead to your death. Explain one way avoiding a small amount of global warming will save a positive net value of lives.
Yes. Now you can see: the burden of proof should be on Buzz to prove his leaving of the wrapper will cause no harm.Quote:
Not only that, but I can use "Humans" in the example. Just replace "Aliens" with Buzz Aldrin. Happy?
You don’t understand analogy. It is clear. When you say “analogy is not A thing itself” you miss the point. Analogy is not THE thing itself. i.e. It is not the thing that it is analogized to. If I say a A is like B, I mean they are both letters of the alphabet, I don’t mean that A=B. And for you to try and defeat the analogy by saying A does not equal B is fallacious. The analogy A is like B is not offered for the proposition that they are equal. Nor does it matter that they are not equal. The fact is, they are both letters of the alphabet. Get it? I hope so. Now go back and rethink your faulty reasoning.Quote:
Want another kicker? SARCASM in my analysis of your M16 analogy, coupled with a metaphor. Yes, an analogy is not a thing itself. I pointed out, that comparing a half proven theory with a tangable object is flawed, comparing a half proven theory to the history and operation of a tangable object is flawed, and that, THROUGH SARCASM, showed how you were attempting to appeal to people on a firearms board. But, its ever so apparent everyone needs to speak to you LITERALLY.
Again, you miss the meaning of analogy. We are not talking about experts “on the same level” or proponents of a theory versus seasoned experts on the M-16. We are talking about who you would seek out for information on any subject: An expert or someone who doesn’t know what they are talking about? In the case of the M-16 it would be the expert versus the gun control nut; in the case of global warming it would be the scientist versus the policy wonk (Card, Creighton, etc.) or you or me.Quote:
Do I need to point out the scientists making opinons about a yet proven theory cannot be held on the same level of seasoned experts teaching about history? Two, completely unrelated subjects that have no similarities in your analogy, and again, you twisted the relative postions in said analogy. Explain, how global warming activists "proposing" a theory has anything remotly similar to a seasoned "expert" veteran of the M16. The main difference? Every "expert" verteran of the M16 is going to know its operation and history. Every climatologist "expert" is not going to support global warming. Not even a major, severe, or vast majority do, and your invented statistics that they do need citation before you continue with more bs. Stating to learn about global warming you would need to go to a "global warming activist" (expert is misused) is extremely short sighted.
I wish you wouldn’t say things like that. It reinforces my already cynical view about the state of education in this country. You really don’t get it, do you? Honestly? You really think that element of human mortality is a relevant variable in the analogy, don’t you? I’m sorry.Quote:
On the same note, to learn about radical Islam you must you go to a radical muslim, resulting in your head cut off on an internet video by the same logic. Your analogy fails. Your analogies of smoking and someone shooting you in the head also fails, due to the element of human mortality not evident in the global warming debate.
Not activists; scientists. And no, they are not the only ones who know what they are talking about. They are just the ones who have come forward with evidence (regardless of whether that evidence meets your standard of proof) and those on the other side have failed to successfully rebut it. The burden should actually be on the latter, but whatever, it’s moot now that burden is back on those who wish to defeat the science in support of the theory.Quote:
You are naive if you think only the global warming activists know what they are talking about, and can be considered the *only* experts on the issue.
No, I didn’t ignore it. I suspect I never even noticed it because it was buried in all your ranting nonsense. Either that, or it was in the balance of one of your posts that I did not even finish reading because you had ruined any intellectual integrity you might have had by putting words in my mouth, misstating my position and otherwise using dilatory argument. Now that you’ve brought it to the surface, I will summarily dismiss it with reference to my prior, un-rebutted arguments on the burden of proof. Remember asbestos? Remember the revolver? Remember the argument regarding cost internalization, personal responsibility, the tragedy of the commons, smoking, and, most importantly, the argument regarding punching the Earth and it’s impact on her ability to absorb another punch? That is why resources should be diverted. Just as we prioritize our use of resources in all other areas, so too our government has chosen to take steps to reduce our contributions to global warming. People’s lives can be saved by reducing the speed limit, but we make a conscious decision to accept some deaths for the convenience of speed. Similar decisions have been made, and more should be made regarding global warming.Quote:
You still have yet to tell anyone why global warming is worth diverting resources away from programs that actually save *real* lives, you simply ignored that portion of one my posts with another "nah nah nah" plug your ears argument.
snip
Now, watch my lips and prepare to eat your words.Quote:
Reeeeeeeeaaaaaaaallly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Recon
That has to be the best quote of inserting "words into peoples mouths" in this entire thread. A: I never cited an EPA position and said they did not say "X". B: You never cited me and asked for clarification of what I said and C: Nowhere in my original citation did I make an issue, or even mention global warming and climate change verbage, so it did not need clarficiation, nor is it an issue D: You brought up global warming/climate change verbage as a response, to avoid having to actually reply to points brought up.
Show me where I said "not X" or where you can infer, imply, or otherwise assume I said "not X" or are you inventing posts as well as you invent statistics?
You said:
Emphasis added in bold so you can eat your words. The article you just cited, above (yes, YOU) says this, the relevant portion in bold, and in direct contradiction to your statement above:Quote:
Link #3: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
Regarding: Climate Change
Author: Various
Site Bias: Government Agency, mostly unbiased
Official Stance: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/sci...knowledge.html
Derived:
What We know: Humans have contributed to greenhouse gas
What we do not know: What contribution to global warming humans and natural causes have made.
Mention of Man made cause of global warming: It hasnt yet been determined
Now, im pretty sure if "virtually every scientist" that has weighed in on this subject, 999/1000 according to your made up statistics, has stated anywhere that global warming is caused wholly, majorly, or even significantly by humans, the EPA (un-biased, slighly left government agency) site would at least make mention of that.
Dont you think the EPA would make an official statement supporting "greenhouse gas" caused global warming if even a decent majority of scientists support its thesis?
They dont.
The only proof you have posted is that there is no proof.
“What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
A warming trend of about 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (NRC, 2001).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.”
Get it? No? I didn’t think so.
Actually, I just defer to the scientists and let the science speak for itself. I know you don’t speak the language, but that’s okay. Whatever.Quote:
Its not my obligation to prove why greenhouse gas induced global warming is false. It is the obligation of its supporters to prove why it is true, and thus so far you have failed miserably.
I am going to let you have the last word. I have tried to be somewhat civil, and I have tried to explain things that you clearly cannot grasp, but since I am not a teacher, and since you clearly are not a student, it really makes me look like a bully when I try to converse with you. It's not fair to you and it demeans me. So hey, guess what, you win! Global warming does not exist and even if it does, humans have nothing to do with it. All will be fine. Carry on.
I am all for global warming I like the heat and think it's great as long as it don't cause Karl to show up to a shoot in speedo's. [roll]
Out of all of the CO2 on the planet, only about 4% has anything to do with human activity. If Algore got his wish and cut US CO2 by half, you're only talking about a fraction of a percentage point. If all human beings on the planet stopped breathing, you'd only make a change of about 1%.
I believe part of the problem is how theory is taught in public school as fact, such as the theory of evolution. There are many theories. Until these theories become scientific fact, that can be reproduced by anyone, they are just speculation.
The earth has warmed before and cooled before.
...and we didn't have anything to do with it. Sorry, but we're just not that significant in the grand scheme.
Just as Islamic fundamentalism is blamed on the US, whose fault was it before the US existed?[wink]
I like global warming.
Look how nice the weathers been for the past few weeks. Especially after this past winters severity and duration. I wish we could hurry things along a bit.
hey check this out this has the science view http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...69846467&hl=en
Like I said, it's the sun's fault.