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.